Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997

Liberty Mutual Insurance v. DeCaro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided November 17, 1997

244 A.D.2d 487; 665 N.Y.S.2d 910; 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11653

Cases that cite this one

10 later published cases cite this decision.

Government Employees Insurance v. Mendoza (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Government Employees Insurance v. Rosenfarb (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
Interboro Mutual Indemnity Insurance v. Pardon (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
Interboro Mutual Indemnity Insurance v. Noel (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Almeida (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
Interboro Mutual Indemnity Insurance v. Wiener (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
Allstate Insurance v. Faulk (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
Allstate Insurance v. Garcia (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
Allstate Insurance v. Riaz (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
State Farm Insurance v. Smith (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

—In a proceeding, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 7503 for a temporary stay of arbitration of an underinsured motorist claim, the petitioner appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Dunne, J.), dated October 31, 1996, as denied that branch of the petition which was for a temporary stay of arbitration.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying that branch of the petition which was for a temporary stay of arbitration. The record indicates that the petitioner-insurance carrier had ample time to seek discovery of the respondent-insured as provided for in the underlying insurance policy, but that it unjustifiably failed to do so in that time (see, Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Urena, 208 AD2d 623; Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Nebedum, 208 AD2d 624; cf., Matter of Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v Keeney, 241 AD2d 455; Matter of MVAIC [Lucash], 16 AD2d 975, 976). Mangano, P. J., Copertino, Joy and Florio, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.