From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hartford Insurance v. Khan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 16, 2001
279 A.D.2d 524 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

Submitted December 20, 2000.

January 16, 2001.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to permanently stay arbitration of an uninsured motorist claim, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O'Shaughnessy, J.H.O.), dated May 9, 2000, which, after a hearing, granted the petition and permanently stayed arbitration.

Stock Carr, Mineola, N.Y. (Victor A. Carr of counsel), for appellant.

John T. Ryan, Garden City, N.Y. (Paul D. Lawless of counsel), for respondent.

Before: CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

It is well settled that the determination of the fact-finding court should not be disturbed on appeal unless it could not have been reached by any fair interpretation of the evidence, particularly in cases resting in large part on the credibility of witnesses (see, Thoreson v. Penthouse Intl., 80 N.Y.2d 490; Matter of Tri-State Consumer Ins. Co. v. Dabush, 264 A.D.2d 848; Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v. McMahon, 251 A.D.2d 571; Matter of Aetna Life Cas. v. Gramazio, 242 A.D.2d 530). The determination that there was no physical contact between the appellant's vehicle and an unidentified vehicle is supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence.


Summaries of

Hartford Insurance v. Khan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 16, 2001
279 A.D.2d 524 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Hartford Insurance v. Khan

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY, RESPONDENT, v. ASMAT KHAN…

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

Date published: Jan 16, 2001

Citations

279 A.D.2d 524 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
718 N.Y.S.2d 872

Citing Cases

Otto v. Triangle Aviation Services, Inc.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs. The determination of the trial court after a nonjury trial…

Kaniklidis v. 235 Lincoln Place Hsg. Corp.

We affirm. It is well settled that the determination of the trial court after a nonjury trial should not be…