November 30, 2010

Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Raynor (2010 NY Slip Op 08936)

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/matter-of-allstate-ins-co-v-raynor-2010-ny-slip-op-08936/

Court
Appellate Division, Second Department
Decided
November 30, 2010
Citation
2010 NY Slip Op 08936 · 78 AD3d 1173
Posture
Article 75 petition
Outcome
Provider prevailed
Issues
SUM / uninsured motorist CPLR article 75 (arbitration awards) Timeliness and preclusion
Cite as
Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Raynor, 78 AD3d 1173 (2d Dept 2010)

Posture, outcome, issues and treatment by other decisions are Beynenson Law’s classification. Treatment labels are assigned by a language model reading the citing decision; negative and appeal-history labels are checked by a second reader.

Summary

Editorial summary by Beynenson Law, not part of the court’s decision.

The insurer's proceeding to stay uninsured motorist arbitration was time-barred because it was commenced outside the 20-day period. The injured claimant's attorney sent a certified letter requesting benefits and giving notice of an intention to arbitrate, including the warning that failure to seek a stay within 20 days would preclude specified objections. After a later arbitration request form, the insurer commenced a CPLR article 75 proceeding, alleging that the offending vehicle was insured. The Appellate Division, Second Department, held that the earlier notice triggered the period under CPLR 7503 (c). It reversed the order directing a hearing and granted the claimant's cross motion to dismiss the proceeding as untimely.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Raynor (2010 NY Slip Op 08936)

Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Raynor
2010 NY Slip Op 08936 [78 AD3d 1173]
November 30, 2010
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
As corrected through Wednesday, January 19, 2011
In the Matter of Allstate Insurance Company, Respondent,
v
Taylor Raynor, Appellant, et al., Respondents.

—[*1] Randall S. Ferguson, Roslyn Heights, N.Y., for appellant.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to stay arbitration of an uninsured motorist claim, Taylor Raynor appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Feinman, J.), entered January 28, 2010, which directed a hearing on all issues raised in the petition and on her cross motion to dismiss the proceeding as time-barred.

Ordered that on the Court’s own motion, the notice of appeal is deemed to be an application for leave to appeal, and leave to appeal is granted (see CPLR 5701 [c]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs to the appellant payable by the petitioner, and the cross motion to dismiss the proceeding as time-barred is granted.

The appellant alleged that she was injured as a result of an accident on May 15, 2009, caused by an uninsured vehicle. On June 12, 2009, the appellant’s attorney sent her insurer, the petitioner, Allstate Insurance Company (hereinafter Allstate), a certified letter, return receipt requested, claiming no-fault benefits, uninsured motorist benefits, and supplemental insurance benefits. The letter contained a notice of intention to arbitrate, and stated that unless Allstate applied to stay arbitration within 20 days after receipt of the notice, Allstate would thereafter be precluded from objecting, inter alia, that a valid agreement to arbitrate was not made or complied with. The appellant’s attorney sent Allstate an American Arbitration Association “request for arbitration” form dated November 5, 2009. On November 20, 2009, Allstate commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to stay arbitration on the ground that the offending vehicle was insured on the date of the accident.

The Supreme Court should have granted the appellant’s cross motion to dismiss the proceeding as time-barred, as the proceeding was not commenced within 20 days of the June 12, 2009, notice of intention to arbitrate (see CPLR 7503 [c]; Matter of Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v Zacharoudis, 65 AD3d 1353, 1354 [2009]; Matter of Government Empls. Ins. Co. v Castillo-Gomez, 34 AD3d 477, 478 [2006]; Matter of CNA [Pough], 99 AD2d 510 [1984]). Florio, J.P., Belen, Lott and Austin, JJ., concur.

Similar decisions