October 21, 2015 - M&H wins reversal of order granting permanent stay of arbitration in personal injury action.

Contact Us

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information
disclaimer.

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.

close

Privacy Policy

In this proceeding to permanently stay arbitration, the Appellate Division, Second Department reversed an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, in accordance with M&H's arguments on appeal, and dismissed the petition to permanently stay arbitration.

Matter of New York Schools Ins. Recriprocal v Staines

2015 NY Slip Op 07663

Decided on October 21, 2015

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.



Decided on October 21, 2015

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P.
RUTH C. BALKIN
THOMAS A. DICKERSON
JEFFREY A. COHEN, JJ.


2014-08762
(Index No. 1138/14)

Dell & Dean, PLLC (Mischel & Horn, P.C., New York, N.Y. [Scott T. Horn and Naomi M. Taub], of counsel), for appellant.

Ahmuty, Demers & McManus, Albertson, N.Y. (Glenn A. Kaminska and Nicholas M. Cardascia of counsel), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to permanently stay arbitration of a claim for supplementary uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (K. Murphy, J.), entered July 10, 2014, which granted the petition.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed.

The petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to permanently stay arbitration of a claim made by James Staines against the petitioner for supplementary uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits. The Supreme Court should have denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding. Although Staines did not comply with a provision of the subject insurance policy requiring him to "immediately" forward to the petitioner the summons and complaint in his action against the motorist who was allegedly at fault in the subject accident, the petitioner failed to demonstrate that it suffered any prejudice resulting from his delay in doing so (see Matter of Brandon [Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.], 97 NY2d 491, 498; Matter of New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v Reinhardt, 27 AD3d 751, 752; State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Sparacio, 297 AD2d 284, 285).

RIVERA, J.P., BALKIN, DICKERSON and COHEN, JJ., concur.