Legal Opinion · Concurrence

In re the Arbitration between Spychalski & Continental Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided July 12, 1977Published

1Concurrence

Goldman, J. (concurring).

We are constrained to concur, for Justice Witmer has correctly stated the applicable law. Respondent’s failure to make its application to stay arbitration within the 20 days provided in CPLR 7503 (subd [c]) jurisdictionally precluded the court from entertaining it. Special Term, however, properly stated that subdivision 2-a of section 167 of the Insurance Law "limits the recovery of an 'insured person’ for an insurer under the uninsured motorist endorsement to a sum not to exceed $10,000” (88 Misc 2d 129, 131). This amount appellant has already received and he can…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Public Service Mutual Insurance v. KatcherNew York Court of Appeals · 1975
  2. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance v. BasileAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1975
  3. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. IslerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1972
  4. In re the Arbitration between Spychalski & Utica Mutual InsuranceNew York Supreme Court · 1976

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API