Progressive Specialty Ins. Co. v. Alexis

• Decision Date: 12 November 2014
• Docket Number: 2013-03364
• Citation: 2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 07668,996 N.Y.S.2d 173,122 A.D.3d 745
• Parties: In the Matter of PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, petitioner-respondent, v. Stephen ALEXIS, et al., respondents-respondents. New York Central Mutual Insurance Company, additional respondent-appellant. So Mi Ko, additional respondent-respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

122 A.D.3d 745

996 N.Y.S.2d 173

2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 07668

In the Matter of PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, petitioner-respondent

v. Stephen ALEXIS, et al., respondents-respondents.New York Central Mutual Insurance Company, additional respondent-appellant.So Mi Ko, additional respondent-respondent.

2013-03364

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Nov. 12, 2014.

Russo & Toner, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Alexandra L. Alvarez of counsel), for additional respondent-appellant.

Adams, Hanson, Rego, Carlin, Kaplan & Fishbein, Yonkers, N.Y. (Michael A. Zarkower of counsel), for petitioner-respondent.

WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., PETER B. SKELOS, SHERI S. ROMAN, and JOSEPH J. MALTESE, JJ.

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to stay arbitration of a claim for supplementary uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits, additional respondent New York Central Mutual Insurance Company appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Onofry, J.), dated January 23, 2013, which, upon granting the petition to the extent of directing a framed issue hearing on the issue of whether additional respondent So Mi Ko was insured by it at the time of the underlying accident, after a hearing, determined that So Mi Ko was so insured at the time of the accident.

ORDERED that on the Court's own motion, the notice of appeal is deemed to be an application for leave to appeal, and leave to appeal is granted (see CPLR 5701[c] ); and it is further,

ORDERED that the order is affirmed; and it is further,

ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the petitioner-respondent.

The respondents Stephen Alexis and Gwen Alexis sustained injuries when the vehicle that Stephen was operating (hereinafter the Alexis vehicle) was involved in a collision with a vehicle owned by the additional respondent So Mi Ko. At the time of the accident, the Alexis vehicle was insured by the petitioner, Progressive Specialty Insurance Company (hereinafter Progressive), and So Mi Ko's vehicle was insured by the additional respondent-appellant, New York Central Mutual Insurance Company (hereinafter New York Central). Stephen and Gwen sought to arbitrate a claim under their Progressive policy, which included an endorsement for supplementary uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits. Progressive then commenced a proceeding to stay the arbitration pursuant to CPLR 7503 on the ground, inter alia, that So Mi Ko's vehicle was insured by New York Central at the time of the accident. New York Central contended that it had cancelled So Mi Ko's policy prior to the subject accident. Thereafter, the Supreme Court directed a framed issue hearing on the issue of whether So Mi Ko...