Legal Opinion

Galaska v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

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

Decided November 15, 1991PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Plaintiffs fail to allege that they did not agree to arbitrate. Rather, plaintiffs seek to avoid the clear and explicit arbitration provisions contained in the policy, issued by defendant, on the *948ground that the policy was never delivered to them. That argument is devoid of merit because plaintiffs’ entire claim is premised on the existence of that policy (see, CPLR 7503 [a]; see also, Bohlen Indus. v Flint Oil & Gas, 106 AD2d 909, 910). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Mordue, J.—Arbitration.) Present—Callahan, A. P.…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Bohlen Industries of North America, Inc. v. Flint Oil & Gas, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Schunk v. New York Central Mutual Fire InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997
  2. Ruiz v. State Wide Insulation & Construction Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2000
  3. Benatovich v. Propis Agency, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996
  4. Hirshfeld v. Maryland Casualty Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998
  5. In re the Arbitration between Metropolitan Propery & Liability Insurance & TraphagenAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1993

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

Powered by the Exa API