Opinion
Submitted March 1, 2000.
April 13, 2000.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to stay the arbitration of an uninsured motorist claim, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Adams, J.), dated September 30, 1999, which denied the application and dismissed the proceeding.
Bruno, Gerbino Macchia, LLP, Melville, N.Y. (Steven D. Brower of counsel), for appellant.
Carl P. Maltese, Smithtown, N.Y. (Marda Rosenbaum of counsel), for respondent.
GUY JAMES MANGANO, P.J., FRED T. SANTUCCI, GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, ANITA R. FLORIO, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The petitioner received the demand to arbitrate on June 1, 1999, and in August 1999 commenced this proceeding to stay the arbitration on the ground that the respondent's injuries occurred as the result of an intentional act and not an accident as defined by the policy.
Contrary to the petitioner's contention, the issue of whether or not the respondent's injuries occurred as the result of an intentional act relates to whether certain conditions of coverage have been satisfied and not whether the parties have agreed to arbitrate. The application to stay arbitration should have been brought within the 20-day limitation period set forth in CPLR 7503(c) (see, Matter of Steck [State Farm Ins. Co.], 89 N.Y.2d 1082; Matter of Matarasso [Continental Cas. Co.], 56 N.Y.2d 264 ; Matter of DelGaudio v. Aetna Ins. Co., 262 A.D.2d 641 ;Matter of CNA Ins. Co. v. Rosa, 253 A.D.2d 494 ; Matter of Hartford Ins. Co. v. Buonocore, 252 A.D.2d 500 ; Matter of Nationwide Ins. Co. v. McDonnell, 248 A.D.2d 476 ; Matter of CNA Ins. Co. v. Carsley, 243 A.D.2d 474 ). Therefore, the proceeding to stay arbitration, which was instituted over two months after receipt of the demand, was properly denied as time-barred.