Peerless Ins. Co. v. Milloul
Decision Date | 02 May 1988 |
Citation | 140 A.D.2d 346,527 N.Y.S.2d 838 |
Parties | In the Matter of PEERLESS INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner-Respondent, v. Sarine MILLOUL, et al., Respondents, United States Fire Insurance Co., Appellant. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Bombara & McGlynn, New York City (Martin M. McGlynn, of counsel), for appellant.
Jerome A. Gottlieb, Hauppauge (David Farber, of counsel), for petitioner-respondent.
Before MOLLEN, P.J., and MANGANO, BRACKEN and LAWRENCE, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a proceeding to permanently stay an uninsured motorist arbitration, the United States Fire Insurance Co. appeals (1) from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Levine, J.), dated November 13, 1986, which, after a nonjury trial, granted the application for a permanent stay of arbitration, and (2) from an order of the same court, dated January 29, 1987, which denied a motion, inter alia, for a new trial.
ORDERED that the appellant is awarded one bill of costs.
On December 19, 1984, Boris Milloul was struck by an automobile while he was crossing Avenue J in Brooklyn. His attorney requested an arbitration pursuant to the uninsured motorist endorsement to an insurance policy issued by Peerless Insurance Company (hereinafter Peerless). Peerless then sought a stay of arbitration upon the ground that the vehicle which struck Mr. Milloul had been identified as one owned by Shelly D. Wright and insured by United States Fire Insurance Company. Milloul's attorney opposed this application, stating that the identification of the Wright vehicle, which is contained in a police report, is unreliable since it is based upon a license plate number furnished by a bystander to the accident, whose identity was, and remains, unknown.
A nonjury trial was held in the Supreme Court, Kings County. The evidence submitted by Peerless consisted solely of uncertified and unauthenticated copies of a police report and a New York State Department of Motor Vehicles Form FS-25. These documents were accepted into evidence over a specific objection as to their competence as evidence. United States Fire Insurance Company produced a witness who testified as to the circumstances of his search of that company's records, which caused him to conclude that that company had never issued an automobile insurance policy to Shelly D. Wright. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court granted the application for a stay of arbitration. This appeal followed.
Certain business records may be received into evidence without having been authenticated by their maker, but only if those records are certified in accordance with CPLR 4518(c) ( see, O'Connor v. Incorporated Vil. of Port Jefferson, 104 A.D.2d 861, 862-863, 480 N.Y.S.2d 376; Liberto v. Worcester Mut. Ins. Co., 87 A.D.2d 477, 479, 452 N.Y.S.2d 74, lv. dismissed 58 N.Y.2d 605, 459 N.Y.S.2d 1028, 445 N.E.2d 655, 58 N.Y.2d 824). The admission into evidence of the FS-25 form and the police report, without the benefit of any testimony establishing their authenticity or accuracy, and without proper certification, was therefore error. The insurance information contained in the police report was not furnished by the driver of the offending vehicle (cf., Matter of Eagle Ins. Co. v. Olephant, 81 A.D.2d 886, 439 N.Y.S.2d 159). The...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Yassin v. Blackman
...970, 971, 971 N.Y.S.2d 562 ; Rodriguez v. Ryder Truck, Inc., 91 A.D.3d 935, 936, 937 N.Y.S.2d 602 ; Matter of Peerless Ins. Co. v. Milloul, 140 A.D.2d 346, 347–348, 527 N.Y.S.2d 838 ; O'Connor v. Incorporated Vil. of Port Jefferson, 104 A.D.2d 861, 862, 480 N.Y.S.2d 376 ), a separate line o......
-
Empire Mut. Ins. Co. (Greaney), Matter of
...to the introduction of the police accident report and, relying on the Second Department's opinion in Matter of Peerless Insurance Company v. Milloul, 140 A.D.2d 346, 348, 527 N.Y.S.2d 838, argues that the IAS court properly received evidence concerning the insurer of the Perez vehicle, cont......
-
De Lisa v. Pettinato
...by their maker, but only if those records are certified in accordance with CPLR 4518(c) * * * " (Matter of Peerless Ins. Co. v. Milloul, 140 A.D.2d 346, 347, 527 N.Y.S.2d 838 [citations omitted]. Reliance upon the police accident report by Supreme Court was therefore error (see, id., at 346......
-
Metropolitan Property & Liability Co. (Pisanelli), Matter of
...petitioner clearly failed to supply the foundation required to introduce the notice of cancellation (see, Matter of Peerless Ins. Co. v. Milloul, 140 A.D.2d 346, 527 N.Y.S.2d 838; Moodie v. American Cas. Co. of Reading, 28 A.D.2d 946, 281 N.Y.S.2d 709; cf., Bullock v. Hanover Ins. Co., 144 ......
-
Governmental documents
...was under no duty to make them. Conners v. Duck’s Cesspool Service, Ltd ., 533 N.Y.S.2d 942 (1988); Peerless Insurance Co., v. Milloul, 527 N.Y.S.2d 838 (App. Div. 1988); MacLean v. San Francisco , 151 Cal. App. 2d 133, 311 P.2d 158 (1957). 28 For a triple hearsay scenario, see Jones v. Mar......
-
Governmental Documents
...was under no duty to make them. Conners v. Duck’s Cesspool Service, Ltd ., 533 N.Y.S.2d 942 (1988); Peerless Insurance Co., v. Milloul, 527 N.Y.S.2d 838 (App. Div. 1988); MacLean v. San Francisco , 151 Cal. App. 2d 133, 311 P.2d 158 (1957). 21 For a triple hearsay scenario, see Jones v. Mar......
-
Governmental Documents
...was under no duty to make them. Conners v. Duck’s Cesspool Service, Ltd ., 533 N.Y.S.2d 942 (1988); Peerless Insurance Co., v. Milloul, 527 N.Y.S.2d 838 (App. Div. 1988); MacLean v. San Francisco , 151 Cal. App. 2d 133, 311 P.2d 158 (1957). 27 For a triple hearsay scenario, see Jones v. Mar......
-
Governmental Documents
...was under no duty to make them. Conners v. Duck’s Cesspool Service, Ltd ., 533 N.Y.S.2d 942 (1988); Peerless Insurance Co., v. Milloul, 527 N.Y.S.2d 838 (App. Div. 1988); MacLean v. San Francisco , 151 Cal. App. 2d 133, 311 P.2d 158 (1957). 21 For a triple hearsay scenario, see Jones v. Mar......