From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Brentnall v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 1, 1993
194 A.D.2d 537 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Summary

noting that, although statute requires that application to vacate or modify arbitration award be made 90 days after delivery of the award, a party may wait and make its arguments for vacating or modifying award in opposition to motion to confirm award

Summary of this case from Perceptron, Inc. v. Silicon Video, Inc.

Opinion

June 1, 1993

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nastasi, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

While CPLR 7511 (a) states that an application to vacate or modify an award shall be made by a party within 90 days after its delivery to him, the party may wait and make his arguments for vacating or modifying the award in opposition to a motion to confirm the award (see, State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 121 A.D.2d 529; see also, Karlan Constr. Co. v. Burdick Assocs. Owners Corp., 166 A.D.2d 416; Vilceus v North Riv. Ins. Co., 150 A.D.2d 769). However, we find that the Supreme Court properly rejected the claim of Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company (hereinafter Nationwide) that the award lacked a rational basis. The medical report submitted by the petitioner in support of her claim, which included objective findings by her treating physician with respect to the permanency of the injuries she had sustained as a result of the accident, which occurred nearly two years before the submitted prognosis, provided an adequate basis for the arbitrator to find that petitioner had sustained "serious injury" as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Matter of Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Ewall, 168 A.D.2d 247, 249; cf., Matter of Fernandez [Universal Underwriters Ins. Co.], 130 A.D.2d 657, 658).

We have examined Nationwide's contentions with respect to the applicability and validity of the policy set-off clause contained in the underinsurance endorsement and find them to be without merit (see, Matter of Federal Ins. Co. v. Reingold, 181 A.D.2d 769; Passaro v. Metropolitan Prop. Liab. Ins. Co., 128 Misc.2d 21, affd 124 A.D.2d 647; Matter of United Community Ins. Co. v Mucatel, 127 Misc.2d 1045, affd 119 A.D.2d 1017, affd 69 N.Y.2d 777; Garry v. Worldwide Underwriters Ins. Co., 120 Misc.2d 91, affd 101 A.D.2d 717). Lawrence, J.P., O'Brien, Copertino and Santucci, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Brentnall v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 1, 1993
194 A.D.2d 537 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

noting that, although statute requires that application to vacate or modify arbitration award be made 90 days after delivery of the award, a party may wait and make its arguments for vacating or modifying award in opposition to motion to confirm award

Summary of this case from Perceptron, Inc. v. Silicon Video, Inc.
Case details for

Matter of Brentnall v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co.

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of ELDA BRENTNALL, Respondent, v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL…

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

Date published: Jun 1, 1993

Citations

194 A.D.2d 537 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
598 N.Y.S.2d 315

Citing Cases

Barclays Capital Inc. v. Leventhal

Respondent thus demonstrates that the FAA does not apply to the parties' dispute here. Applying New York law,…

Tenenbaum v. Melnicke

It is only common sense that if a petition to confirm (which has a longer statute of limitations of a year)…