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: METLIFE AUTO & HOME, appellant, v. Donato PENNELLA, et al., respondents.
In a proceeding, inter alia, to permanently stay arbitration of a claim for uninsured motorist benefits, the petitioner appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Carey, J.H.O.), dated February 3, 2003, as denied that branch of the petition which was to permanently stay arbitration.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.
The appellant contends that the purported cancellation by the respondent Highlands Insurance Company (hereinafter Highlands) of the auto insurance policy it issued to the respondent Windsor Waste Management was invalid because there was no proof that the notice of cancellation was properly mailed. A hearing was held to determine the validity of the cancellation, at which the appellant waived live testimony regarding the alleged mailing. A party who agrees not to take a certain position in a trial court will be held to have waived that position on appeal (see generally Matter of Attorney Gen. of State of N.Y. v. Firetog, 94 N.Y.2d 477, 484, 706 N.Y.S.2d 666, 727 N.E.2d 1220; Grimaldi v. Spievogel, 300 A.D.2d 200, 751 N.Y.S.2d 737). By agreeing to waive live testimony regarding the alleged mailing, the appellant waived any challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence on that issue. Therefore, the Supreme Court properly determined that the cancellation notice was mailed and that the policy issued by Highlands was cancelled. Thus, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the petition which was to permanently stay arbitration.
Thank you for your feedback!
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.
Decided: September 27, 2004
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)