Hanover Ins. Co. v. McIntyre
| Decision Date | 25 July 1988 |
| Citation | 531 N.Y.S.2d 307,142 A.D.2d 728 |
| Parties | In the Matter of HANOVER INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. William McINTYRE, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Russo & Tanenbaum, P.C., Westbury (Edward J. Frank, of counsel), for appellant.
Eric H. Green, New York City (Marc Gertler, of counsel), for respondent McIntyre.
Before KUNZEMAN, J.P., and WEINSTEIN, EIBER and SPATT, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to stay arbitration, the petitioner, Hanover Insurance Company, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (McCarthy, J.), dated January 5, 1987, which denied the petition and directed the parties to proceed to arbitration.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
A vehicle driven by the respondent William McIntyre was involved in a collision with another vehicle which allegedly lacked any insurance coverage. McIntyre subsequently served his insurance company, the petitioner herein, with a demand for arbitration, seeking recovery under the uninsured motorist endorsement contained in his policy. The petitioner, in turn, sought to stay arbitration on the ground that the offending vehicle may have been insured by the respondent Allstate Insurance Company (hereinafter Allstate) at the time of the collision. By order dated April 22, 1986, the Supreme Court granted the petitioner's unopposed motion for a preliminary stay of arbitration pending a hearing on the issue of whether the offending vehicle had been covered by insurance at the time of the occurrence. The petitioner was directed to serve Allstate within a specified period of time. The court's order further stated: "Upon the failure of petitioner to serve [Allstate], the stay of arbitration shall be lifted."
A preliminary hearing was thereafter conducted. The court immediately inquired as to whether Allstate had been served with the appropriate papers since no representative had appeared in its behalf. The petitioner's counsel thereupon informed the court that Allstate had been "served" by way of ordinary mail. As a result, the court, in an order dated January 5, 1987, lifted the preliminary stay and directed the parties to proceed to arbitration. The petitioner appealed from this order.
We find that the Supreme Court properly vacated the stay of arbitration since the petitioner failed to acquire jurisdiction over a necessary party, as required by a prior court order. It is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Matter of Cartier v. County of Nassau
...Matter of Yak Taxi v Teke, 41 N.Y.2d 1020; Matter of Metropolitan Cas. & Prop. Ins. Co. v Suggs, 268 A.D.2d 240; Matter of Hanover Ins. Co. v McIntyre, 142 A.D.2d 728; Matter of Wausau Ins. Co. v Predestin, 114 A.D.2d 900; Matter of J.P.L., Inc. v L & A Music Co., 112 A.D.2d 230). The re-se......
-
In the Matter of Maya Assurance Co. v. Hussain
...625 N.Y.S.2d 619; Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. Oliphant, 152 A.D.2d 541, 542, 543 N.Y.S.2d 154; Matter of Hanover Ins. Co. v. McIntyre, 142 A.D.2d 728, 729, 531 N.Y.S.2d 307; Matter of Allcity Ins. Co. [ Guy ], 97 A.D.2d 374, 374, 467 N.Y.S.2d 579; Matter of American Sec. Ins. Co. v. Stanley......
-
Rodriguez v. Allstate Ins. Co.
...mail, is jurisdictionally defective (Yak Taxi v. Teke, 41 N.Y.2d 1020, 395 N.Y.S.2d 627, 363 N.E.2d 1372 (1977); Hanover Insur. Co. v. McIntyre, 142 A.D.2d 728, 531 N.Y.S.2d 307 (2nd Depart.1988)). Additionally, there is no evidence that respondent had actual notice of these proceedings. In......
-
Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. Oliphant
...374, 467 N.Y.S.2d 579; American Security Ins. Co. v. Stanley, 86 A.D.2d 834, 447 N.Y.S.2d 462; see also, Hanover Ins. Co. v. McIntyre, 142 A.D.2d 728, 729, 531 N.Y.S.2d 307). Moreover, we decline to remit this matter to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for proper joinder and redeterminatio......