Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: NEW YORK SCHOOLS INSURANCE RECIPROCAL, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, v. PATRICIA ARMITAGE, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT. ALEX CELNIKER, ROMAN A. CELNIKER AND LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, PROPOSED ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Petitioner appeals from an order denying its petition seeking a permanent stay of arbitration. Respondent sought arbitration following petitioner's denial of her claim for no-fault insurance benefits. The propriety of the denial of benefits is a “dispute involving the insurer's liability to pay first party benefits” (Insurance Law § 5106[b] ), and we therefore conclude that Supreme Court properly refused to grant a permanent stay of arbitration (see generally Ryder Truck Lines v Maiorano, 44 N.Y.2d 364, 368-369). Petitioner further contends that the issue whether the offset for workers' compensation benefits exceeds the monthly limit of first party benefits is not a matter for arbitration. We reject that contention (see § 5102[a][2]; see generally § 5106[b]; Matter of Johnson v Buffalo & Erie County Private Indus. Council, 84 N.Y.2d 13, 18-19; Matter of Cady [Aetna Life & Cas. Co.], 96 A.D.2d 967, affd 61 N.Y.2d 594). Finally, we reject petitioner's contention that, by refusing to grant a permanent stay of arbitration, the court denied petitioner its right to seek a loss-transfer claim from additional proposed respondents (see generally Matter of Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. [Hanover Ins. Co.], 307 A.D.2d 40, 42-43).
Patricia L. Morgan
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: CA 10-02172
Decided: March 25, 2011
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)