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: Maya Assurance Company, appellant, v. Iqbal Hussain, respondent-respondent, GEICO, proposed additional respondent-respondent; et al., proposed additional respondent.
Argued—June 20, 2011
DECISION & ORDER
Gail S. Lauzon (Montfort, Healy, McGuire & Salley, Garden City, N.Y. [Donald S. Neumann, Jr.], of counsel), for proposed additional respondent-respondent.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to permanently stay arbitration of a claim for uninsured motorist benefits, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rios, J.), dated May 20, 2010, which denied the petition on the ground that it failed to properly serve GEICO and directed the parties to proceed to arbitration.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The petitioner, Maya Assurance Company (hereinafter Maya), commenced this proceeding to stay arbitration demanded by the respondent, Iqbal Hussain. After the proceeding was commenced, the Supreme Court granted Maya leave to add GEICO as a respondent to the proceeding (see CPLR 401; see also CPLR 1003).
Although service of the notice of petition to stay arbitration by registered or certified mail (return receipt requested) is sufficient to confer jurisdiction over a party to the proposed arbitration (see CPLR 7503[c] ), it was insufficient to confer jurisdiction over GEICO since it was not a party to the proposed arbitration (see Matter of Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 214 A.D.2d 734, 734–735; Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. Oliphant, 152 A.D.2d 541, 542; Matter of Hanover Ins. Co. v. McIntyre, 142 A.D.2d 728, 729; Matter of Allcity Ins. Co. [Guy ], 97 A.D.2d 374, 374; Matter of American Sec. Ins. Co. v Stanley, 86 A.D.2d 834, 835; see generally CPLR 403[c] ). Moreover, contrary to Maya's contention, GEICO did not waive its contention that personal jurisdiction was not properly obtained (see CPLR 320[b]; Gager v. White, 53 N.Y.2d 475, 487–488, cert denied sub nom. J.E. Guertin Co. v Cachat, 454 U.S. 1086; Beris v. Miller, 128 A.D.2d 822, 823).
Maya's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition and directed the parties to proceed to arbitration.
DILLON, J.P., ENG, SGROI and MILLER, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Matthew G. Kiernan
Clerk of the Court
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.
Docket No: 2010–06420 (Index No. 22273 /09)
Decided: August 02, 2011
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)