From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In the Matter of Metro. Prop. Cas. Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 15, 2004
5 A.D.3d 601 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

2003-04779.

Decided March 15, 2004.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to stay arbitration of an uninsured motorist claim, the appeal is from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (John J.J. Jones, Jr., J.), entered May 8, 2003, which, upon a decision of the same court dated February 26, 2003, made after a hearing, granted the petition and permanently stayed arbitration.

Craig P. Curcio, Middletown, N.Y. (Tony Semidey of counsel), for appellant.

Gallagher, Walker, Bianco Plastaras, Mineola, N.Y. (Dominic P. Bianco, Robert A. Monahan, and Nola William of counsel), for petitioner-respondent.

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

Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., HOWARD MILLER, STEPHEN G. CRANE, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

"It is well established that the decision of the fact-finding court should not be disturbed on appeal unless the court's conclusions could not be reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence, especially in cases resting in large part on the credibility of witnesses" ( Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v. McMahon, 251 A.D.2d 571, 572; see Thoreson v. Penthouse Intl., 80 N.Y.2d 490, 495; Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Mucerino, 275 A.D.2d 464; Matter of Aetna Life Cas. v. Gramazio, 242 A.D.2d 530). The determination that there was no physical contact between the appellant's automobile and an alleged hit-and-run vehicle is supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence adduced at the hearing and should not be disturbed ( see Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Mucerino, supra; Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co. v. Roth, 253 A.D.2d 875; Matter of Aetna Life Cas. v. Gramazio, supra).

RITTER, J.P., H. MILLER, CRANE and COZIER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

In the Matter of Metro. Prop. Cas. Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 15, 2004
5 A.D.3d 601 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

In the Matter of Metro. Prop. Cas. Co.

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF METROPOLITAN PROPERTY AND CASUALTY COMPANY…

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

Date published: Mar 15, 2004

Citations

5 A.D.3d 601 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
772 N.Y.S.2d 850

Citing Cases

In re Travelers Property Casualty Company

Issues of fact exist as to whether the appellant had departed from his vehicle incident only to some…

Gov't Emp. v. Steinmetz

"Where, as here, a case is tried without a jury, this Court's power to review the evidence is as broad as…