From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In Re: Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Snell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 10, 2001
286 A.D.2d 682 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

Submitted May 23, 2001

September 10, 2001.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR 7503 to stay arbitration of an uninsured motorist claim, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Adams, J.), dated August 17, 2000, which granted the petition.

DeAngelis Hafiz, P.C., Mount Vernon, N.Y. (Joseph J. Carcagno of counsel), for appellant.

Darienzo Lauzon, Garden City, N.Y. (Montfort, Healy, McGuire Salley [Donald S. Neumann, Jr.] of counsel), for respondent.

Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., SONDRA MILLER, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, and SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, JJ.


ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Since the appellant failed to report the alleged hit-and-run accident to the police within 24 hours or as soon as reasonably possible as required by the policy at issue, she is precluded from recovering the policy's uninsured motorist benefits (see, Matter of State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. v. Genao, 210 A.D.2d 340; Matter of United States Fire Ins. Co. v. Williams, 166 A.D.2d 538). Moreover, contrary to the appellant's contention, the petitioner timely disclaimed coverage upon first learning of the ground for such disclaimer (see, Matter of Allcity Ins. Co. [Jimenez], 78 N.Y.2d 1054; Matter of Legion Ins. Co. v. Estevez, 281 A.D.2d 420).


Summaries of

In Re: Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Snell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 10, 2001
286 A.D.2d 682 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

In Re: Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Snell

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, RESPONDENT, v…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Sep 10, 2001

Citations

286 A.D.2d 682 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
729 N.Y.S.2d 779

Citing Cases

In the Matter of Eagle Ins., v. Brown

, as no appeal lies from an order denying leave to reargue, and the appeal from so much of the order dated…