From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Progressive Specialty Ins. Co. v. Guzmarino

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Mar 5, 2019
170 A.D.3d 416 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)

Opinion

8585N Index 656333/16

03-05-2019

In re PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner–Appellant, v. Paul GUZMARINO, Respondent–Respondent.

Law Offices of Jennifer S. Adams, Yonkers (Michael A. Zarkower of counsel), for appellant. Hill & Moin, LLP, New York (Cheryl R. Eisberg Moin of counsel), for respondent.


Law Offices of Jennifer S. Adams, Yonkers (Michael A. Zarkower of counsel), for appellant.

Hill & Moin, LLP, New York (Cheryl R. Eisberg Moin of counsel), for respondent.

Acosta, P.J., Richter, Manzanet–Daniels, Tom, Moulton, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Nancy M. Bannon, J.), entered May 29, 2018, which denied the petition to permanently stay an uninsured motorist arbitration commenced by respondent, and directed the parties to proceed to arbitration of respondent's claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent was hit by an unidentified motor vehicle while he was bicycling on a bike path. Following his demand for uninsured motorist arbitration, petitioner commenced this CPLR article 75 proceeding to stay the arbitration. Petitioner alleged that respondent had failed to establish physical contact with an unidentified vehicle as required by the policy, and that he failed to notify the police within 24 hours of the event or as soon as was reasonably possible.

On the initial application for a stay of arbitration, the burden rests on the party seeking the stay to establish the existence of evidentiary facts, sufficient to conclude that there is a genuine preliminary issue (see Matter of Hereford Ins. Co. v . Vazquez, 158 A.D.3d 470, 471, 70 N.Y.S.3d 489 [1st Dept. 2018] ; Matter of Commercial Union Ins. Cos. [Pouncy], 120 A.D.2d 382, 383, 502 N.Y.S.2d 22 [1st Dept. 1986] ). Here, petitioner failed to meet its burden because its submissions consisted of mere conclusory allegations (see Matter of Commercial Unit Ins. Cos. [Pouncy], 120 A.D.2d at 383, 502 N.Y.S.2d 22 ).

We have considered petitioner's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.


Summaries of

Progressive Specialty Ins. Co. v. Guzmarino

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Mar 5, 2019
170 A.D.3d 416 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)
Case details for

Progressive Specialty Ins. Co. v. Guzmarino

Case Details

Full title:In re Progressive Specialty Insurance Company, Petitioner-Appellant, v…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Mar 5, 2019

Citations

170 A.D.3d 416 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)
2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 1525
93 N.Y.S.3d 559