You are here: / / Trial Court Should Have Stayed Arbitration and Held Framed-Issue Hearing...

Trial Court Should Have Stayed Arbitration and Held Framed-Issue Hearing to Determine Whether Another Driver Involved in Collision​

There was a collision involving a car self-insured by Hertz, the petitioner.  The respondent driver of the Hertz car alleged she collided with another car which left the scene.  Based on a description of the other vehicle and the last four digits of the license number. Hertz determined the owner, Morrison, and insurer, Travelers, of the other car.  Morrison denied involvement in the accident and Travelers denied the respondent’s property damage claim on that basis. The respondent sought supplementary uninsured motorist arbitration with Hertz.  Hertz then commenced a proceeding to temporarily stay arbitration pending a framed-issue hearing to determine if Morrison was involved in the collision.  In determining Hertz petition should have been granted, the Second Department wrote:

“The party seeking a stay of arbitration has the burden of showing the existence of sufficient evidentiary facts to establish a preliminary issue which would justify the stay”…. Thereafter, the burden is on the party opposing the stay to rebut the prima facie showing…. Where a triable issue of fact is raised, the Supreme Court, not the arbitrator, must determine it in a framed-issue hearing, and the appropriate procedure under such circumstances is to temporarily stay arbitration pending a determination of the issue …. Here, the documents submitted by Hertz in support of the petition demonstrated the existence of sufficient evidentiary facts to establish a preliminary issue justifying a temporary stay. In opposition to the petition, Morrison denied any involvement in the accident. As the evidence submitted by the parties raised a triable issue of fact as to whether Morrison’s vehicle was involved in the subject accident, the Supreme Court should have conducted a framed-issue hearing on that issue before rendering a determination on the petition … .  Matter of Hertz Corp v Holmes, 2013 NY Slip Op 03674, 2nd Dept, 5-22-13

TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS

You might also like
CAUSES OF ACTION ALLEGING BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY DO NOT ACCRUE UNTIL THE FIDUCIARY DUTY IS OPENLY REPUDIATED; CAUSES OF ACTION FOR CONVERSION BASED UPON FRAUD ARE TIMELY SIX YEARS FROM THE CONVERSION OR TWO YEARS FROM DISCOVERY OF THE CONVERSION; THE RELEVANT CAUSES OF ACTION HERE, THEREFORE, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF A PROTRUDING NAIL IN A BASEMENT STAIRWAY WHICH ALLEGEDLY CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL; DEFENDANT DID NOT PRESENT EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATING WHEN THE STAIRWAY WAS LAST CLEANED OR INSPECTED (SECOND DEPT).
No Notice of Defect Needed Where Municipality Affirmatively Created It.
THE TOWN CODE PROVISION WHICH REQUIRES A PROPERTY INSPECTION BEFORE ISSUANCE OF A RENTAL PERMIT DOES NOT VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES BECAUSE THE PROVISION ALLOWS THE LANDLORD TO HAVE THE INSPECTION DONE BY A STATE-LICENSED ENGINEER, AS OPPOSED TO THE TOWN BUILDING INSPECTOR (SECOND DEPT). ​
DEFENDANTS’ CONDOMINIUM WAS DAMAGED BY FIRE FORCING THEM TO LIVE ELSEWHERE FOR A YEAR; THE ALLEGATION PLAINTIFF DID NOT MAKE TIMELY REPAIRS DID NOT RELIEVE DEFENDANTS OF THEIR CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION TO PAY THE COMMON CHARGES (SECOND DEPT). ​
ALTHOUGH THE FORECLOSURE CAUSE OF ACTION WAS DISMISSED AFTER TRIAL BECAUSE THE BANK FAILED TO PROVE STANDING AND COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1304, THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, CANCELLED AND DISCHARGED THE MORTGAGE, RELIEF DEFENDANT HAD NOT REQUESTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE AFFIDAVITS SUBMITTED BY THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Wife’s Stipulation Waiving Claim to Benefits Valid Even though Law Unclear... Court’s Quashing of Defense Subpoena Deprived Defendant of Right to Present...