From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter, Interboro Mut. Indemy. Ins. v. Wiener

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 13, 1999
267 A.D.2d 310 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

Submitted October 6, 1999

December 13, 1999

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR 7503 to permanently stay arbitration of an underinsured motorist claim, the petitioner appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Alpert, J.), entered December 4, 1998, as denied its application to compel the respondent to comply with the discovery provisions set forth in the insurance policy before proceeding to arbitration.

Feeney, Gayoso Fitzpatrick, LLP, Nesconset, N.Y. (Elizabeth A. Fitzpatrick of counsel), for appellant.

GUY JAMES MANGANO, P.J., DAVID S. RITTER, DANIEL W. JOY, LEO F. McGINITY, NANCY E. SMITH, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is modified by deleting therefrom the provision denying those branches of the application which were to compel the respondent to submit to both a physical examination and an examination under oath, and to provide authorizations for the release of medical records, and substituting therefor provisions granting those branches of the application, with that discovery to take place after the conclusion of the hearing directed by the order appealed from, and otherwise denying the application; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the appellant.

On the record presented, we disagree with the Supreme Court's finding that the petitioner insurance carrier had ample time to seek discovery of the respondent insured as provided for in the underlying insurance policy but unjustifiably failed to do so (see, Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v. Faulk, 250 A.D.2d 674 ; Matter of Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. DeCaro, 244 A.D.2d 487 ). However, such discovery should not occur until after the conclusion of the hearing directed by the order appealed from, at which various threshold procedural issues determinative of whether the arbitration may proceed are to be litigated.

MANGANO, P.J., RITTER, JOY, McGINITY, and SMITH, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter, Interboro Mut. Indemy. Ins. v. Wiener

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 13, 1999
267 A.D.2d 310 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Matter, Interboro Mut. Indemy. Ins. v. Wiener

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of INTERBORO MUTUAL INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, appellant…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Dec 13, 1999

Citations

267 A.D.2d 310 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
699 N.Y.S.2d 894

Citing Cases

Matter of Lancer Ins. Co. v. Berman

Additionally, on the record presented, there is no indication that the petitioner intended to waive its right…

Interboro v. Theresa Rienzo

The Supreme Court correctly concluded that the respondent was not barred by the doctrines of res judicata or…