State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Cherian, 1
| Decision Date | 07 March 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 1,1,2 |
| Citation | 608 N.Y.S.2d 708,202 A.D.2d 434 |
| Parties | In the Matter of STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner-Respondent, v. Sosamma CHERIAN, Respondent, Government Employees Insurance Company, et al., Appellants (Proceeding). In the Matter of STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner-Respondent, v. Saramma VARUGHESE, Respondent, Government Employees Insurance Company, et al., Appellants (Proceeding). |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Montfort, Healy, McGuire & Salley, Garden City (E. Richard Rimmels, Jr., of counsel), for appellants Government Employees Ins. Co. and Geico General Ins. Co. Diamond, Rutman, Costello & Silberglitt, New York City (Seligson, Rothman & Rothman, Martin S. Rothman, Mark S. Silberglitt, Morris J. Bloomstein, and Alyne I. Diamond, of counsel), for petitioner-respondent.
Before MILLER, J.P., and COPERTINO, SANTUCCI and GOLDSTEIN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In two consolidated proceedings pursuant to CPLR article 75 to permanently stay arbitration of an uninsured motorist claim, the appeal is from (1) an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Groh, J., on decision; Kassoff, J., on order and judgment), dated February 25, 1992, which, after a hearing, granted the petitioner's application to permanently stay arbitration of the claim made by Sosamma Cherian (Proceeding No. 1), and (2) an order and judgment (one paper) of the same court, dated May 7, 1992, which, inter alia, granted the petitioner's motion for summary judgment and permanently stayed arbitration of the claim made by Saramma Varughese (Proceeding No. 2).
ORDERED that the appellants are awarded one bill of costs, payable by the petitioner State Farm Automobile Mutual Insurance Company.
While the initial burden of demonstrating a valid cancellation is on the insurance company which disclaims coverage (see, Saranac Lake Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Md., 159 A.D.2d 895, 553 N.Y.S.2d 229; Federal Ins. Co. v. Kimbrough, 116 A.D.2d 692, 497 N.Y.S.2d 756; Holmes v. Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 92 A.D.2d 1045, 461 N.Y.S.2d 549), once the appellant offered into evidence a notice of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Progressive Specialty Ins. Co. v. Alexis
...199, 786 N.Y.S.2d 482 ; Nassau Ins. Co. v. Hernandez, 65 A.D.2d 551, 552, 408 N.Y.S.2d 956 ; cf. Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Cherian, 202 A.D.2d 434, 435–436, 608 N.Y.S.2d 708 ).New York Central's remaining contentions are without merit.Accordingly, the Supreme Court properl......
-
Nat'l Liab. & Fire Ins. Co. v. Croxton
... ... , Utica National Assurance Company, John Doe 1-10 and/or Jane Doe 1-10 and XYZ Insurance ... Matter of State Farm ... Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Mazyck, 48 ... Auto Ins. v. Cherian, 202 A.D.2d 434 ... (2ndDept. 1994). No ... ...
-
Estate of Shaw, Matter of
... ... cannot be admitted to probate (see, EPTL 3-4.1[a][2][A]; see also, Matter of Parsons, 236 N.Y ... ...
-
Jones v. Allstate Ins. Co.
...see also, Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Morales, 207 A.D.2d 546, 615 N.Y.S.2d 936; Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Cherian, 202 A.D.2d 434, 608 N.Y.S.2d 708; Diaz v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 109 A.D.2d 775, 486 N.Y.S.2d 289). Moreover, the plaintiffs acknowledged that d......