You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance v. Shepard

Citations: 249 A.D.2d 549; 671 N.Y.S.2d 353; 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4615

Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; April 27, 1998; New York; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In a proceeding regarding the stay of arbitration for an uninsured motorist claim, the Supreme Court of Queens County issued two orders: one on February 14, 1997, granting the petition to stay arbitration, and another on August 13, 1997, denying the appellant's motion for reargument. The appeal from the August 13 order was dismissed, as appeals do not lie from orders denying reargument. The February 14 order was affirmed, and the petitioner-respondent was awarded a bill of costs. The court concluded that the appellant did not submit a timely proof-of-claim form as required by her insurance policy. Additionally, the appellant's argument regarding the insurer's alleged failure to timely disclaim coverage was found to be without merit. Judges Mangano, P.J., Miller, Pizzuto, and Krausman concurred with the decision.

Legal Issues Addressed

Appealability of Orders Denying Reargument

Application: The court determined that an appeal cannot be made from an order denying a motion for reargument.

Reasoning: The appeal from the August 13 order was dismissed, as appeals do not lie from orders denying reargument.

Insurer's Obligation to Timely Disclaim Coverage

Application: The appellant's contention that the insurer failed to timely disclaim coverage was rejected by the court.

Reasoning: Additionally, the appellant's argument regarding the insurer's alleged failure to timely disclaim coverage was found to be without merit.

Proof-of-Claim Requirements in Insurance Policies

Application: The court affirmed that the appellant failed to comply with the requirement to submit a timely proof-of-claim form as mandated by her insurance policy.

Reasoning: The court concluded that the appellant did not submit a timely proof-of-claim form as required by her insurance policy.