From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of General Accident Ins. v. Bonefont

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 21, 2000
277 A.D.2d 379 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Argued October 26, 2000.

November 21, 2000.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to permanently stay arbitration of a claim for uninsured motorist benefits, Teresa A. Williams and Interboro Mutual Indemnity Insurance Company appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O'Shaughnessy, J.H.O.), dated May 9, 2000, which granted the petition and stayed arbitration.

Jerrold N. Cohen, Mineola, N.Y., for appellants.

Curtis, Vasile, Devine McElhenny, Merrick, N.Y. (Robert E. Schleier, Jr., of counsel), for petitioner-respondent.

Before: CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., WILLIAM C. THOMPSON, SONDRA MILLER, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388 there is a "very strong" presumption that a vehicle is operated with the consent of the owner. There was no substantial evidence to overcome the presumption with respect to the vehicle owned by Teresa A. Williams (see, Asaro v. McGuire Auto Rental Leasing, 238 A.D.2d 366; Albouyeh v. County of Suffolk, 96 A.D.2d 543, affd 62 N.Y.2d 681; Stewart v. Town of Hempstead, 204 A.D.2d 431; State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. v. White, 175 A.D.2d 122).

The resolution by the Supreme Court of the issues regarding the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given the evidence is supported by the record and will not be disturbed (see, Jacoby, M.D., P.C. v. Loper Assocs., 249 A.D.2d 277). The fact that Williams' testimony was not contradicted does not, by itself, overcome the presumption that the vehicle was being operated with permission (see, Lewis v. Caldwell, 236 A.D.2d 896; Horvath v. Lindenhurst Auto Salvage, Inc., 104 F.3d 540).


Summaries of

Matter of General Accident Ins. v. Bonefont

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 21, 2000
277 A.D.2d 379 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Matter of General Accident Ins. v. Bonefont

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF GENERAL ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY…

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

Date published: Nov 21, 2000

Citations

277 A.D.2d 379 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
716 N.Y.S.2d 596

Citing Cases

Lopez v. Henrys

"Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388 creates a strong presumption' (Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v…

Croke v. Osburn

The Court also stated that "an equally important policy reflected in section 388 is the heightened degree of…