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.
N IN RE: Interboro Insurance Company, Petitioner–Respondent, v. Violetta Steed, et al., Respondents, Maritza Velez, et al, Proposed Additional Respondents, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Proposed Additional Respondent–Appellant.
Picciano & Scahill, P.C., Westbury (Albert J. Galatan of counsel), for Interboro Insurance Company, respondent.
_
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alison Y. Tuitt, J.), entered April 11, 2012, which, insofar as appealed from, granted the petition of Interboro Insurance Company to the extent of granting a temporary stay pending a framed issue hearing to determine whether the vehicle owned by the proposed additional respondents was insured on the date of the loss, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Proposed additional respondent-appellant State Farm Mutual Insurance Company has been brought into this court proceeding to determine whether the proposed individual respondents were insured at the time of the alleged accident. The order is appealable, since it affects a substantial right (CPLR 5701[a][2] [v] ), in that “it would force one party or the other to submit to a lengthy expensive hearing” (General Elec. Co. v. Rabin, 177 A.D.2d 354, 356–357 [1st Dept 1991] ).
Considering State Farm's argument, dismissal of the underlying personal injury action pursuant to CPLR 3215(c) for the abandonment of a complaint was not a dismissal on the merits (see Lincoln First Bank of Rochester v Palmyra Motors, 84 A.D.2d 670, 670 [4th Dept 1981]; see also New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v Barry, 63 AD3d 892, 893 [2d Dept 2009]; Shepard v. St. Agnes Hosp., 86 A.D.2d 628, 630 [2d Dept 1982] ). The motion court did
not state that respondents' complaint was being dismissed on the merits, and so, respondents were not precluded from requesting arbitration of the insurance coverage issue.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
_
CLERK
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 1142 7
Decided: December 31, 2013
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First 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)