You are here: / / INSURER’S MOTION TO STAY ARBITRATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED...
,

INSURER’S MOTION TO STAY ARBITRATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY, RESPONDENT HAD WAIVED ARBITRATION BY STARTING LITIGATION, TIME RESTRICTIONS ON A MOTION FOR A STAY DID NOT APPLY.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, noted that the motion for a stay of arbitration brought by the insurer (petitioner) in this underinsured motorist benefits action, although untimely under the CPLR, should not have been dismissed on that ground. Respondent had waived arbitration by instigating litigation so the time restrictions on a motion to stay did not apply (even though the insurer had participated in the arbitration):

​

Petitioner seeks to permanently stay an underinsured motorist benefits arbitration proceeding brought by respondent in New York.

The motion court erred in dismissing the motion to stay as untimely. The time restrictions set forth at CPLR 7503(c) do not apply where, as here, respondent waived her right to arbitrate by initiating litigation on the same claims … . “[O]nce waived, the right to arbitrate cannot be regained, even by the respondent’s failure to [timely] seek a stay of arbitration” … .

That petitioner participated, under objection, in the arbitration is immaterial. Even if the arbitration had been completed and an award issued, the award would be subject to vacatur on the ground that the arbitrator lacked authority to conduct the arbitration … . Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Howell, 2017 NY Slip Op 04406, 1st Dept 6-6-17

 

ARBITRATION (INSURANCE LAW, INSURER’S MOTION TO STAY ARBITRATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY, RESPONDENT HAD WAIVED ARBITRATION BY STARTING LITIGATION, TIME RESTRICTIONS ON A MOTION FOR A STAY DID NOT APPLY)/INSURANCE LAW (ARBITRATION, INSURER’S MOTION TO STAY ARBITRATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY, RESPONDENT HAD WAIVED ARBITRATION BY STARTING LITIGATION, TIME RESTRICTIONS ON A MOTION FOR A STAY DID NOT APPLY)

You might also like
WHEN SERVICE OF PROCESS IS MAILED TO A BUSINESS ADDRESS, AS OPPOSED TO A RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS, THE ENVELOPE SHOULD NOT INDICATE THE CONTENTS ARE LITIGATION-RELATED; HERE THE DEFENDANT’S ADDRESS WAS BOTH HIS RESIDENTIAL AND HIS BUSINESS ADDRESS AND THE ENVELOPE INDICATED THE CONTENTS WERE LITIGATION-RELATED; THE RESIDENTIAL MAILING RULES APPLIED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, A CABLE TRAY FELL ON HIS HEAD FROM THE TOP OF TWO LADDERS, A SUBCONTRACTOR WAS LIABLE BECAUSE THE CONTRACT DELEGATED THE AUTHORITY TO CONTROL THE WORK TO THE SUBCONTRACTOR, THE LESSEE WAS LIABLE AS AN “OWNER” WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FIRST DEPT).
THE CONTRACTOR THAT HIRED THE SUBCONTRACTOR FOR WHICH THE INJURED PLAINTIFF WORKED WAS THE CONDOMINIUM DEFENDANTS’ STATUTORY AGENT AND THEREFORE CAN BE HELD LIABLE IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION (FIRST DEPT).
THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT APPORTIONING LIABILITY TO THE GYNECOLOGIST WHO NOTED IN HIS REPORT HE FOUND “NO ABNORMALITIES” SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; PLAINTIFF DID NOT PROVE THE NOTATION MISLED THE PRIMARY CARE PHYICIAN RESULTING IN A DELAY IN DIAGNOSING APPENDICITIS (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER BOARDS OR MASONITE WERE SCATTERED DEBRIS OR DELIBERATELY PLACED AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE RENOVATION WORK; PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION ON HIS LABOR 241(6) CAUSE OF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT IN THIS CONDOMINIUM ACTION WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A MANDATORY FORECLOSURE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE.
PLAINTIFF, IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT SEXUAL ABUSE ACTION, PROPERLY ASSERTED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS, CRITERIA EXPLAINED IN DEPTH (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS NOT PROVIDED WITH A SECURED A-FRAME LADDER AND WAS NOT PROVIDED WITH ANYTHING TO SECURE THE PIPE HE WAS ATTEMPTING TO REMOVE WHEN IT FELL AND STRUCK THE LADDER; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION; THE “RECALCITRANT WORKER” AND “FAILURE TO FOLLOW SAFETY INSTRUCTIONS” ALLEGATIONS DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT (FIRST DEPT).​ ​

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

NYC ZONING ORDINANCES CONCERNING ADULT BOOKSTORES AND CLUBS ARE CONSTITUTIONAL... ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE DID NOT APPLY TO INFORMATION ON A COMPANY OWNED COMPUTER,...