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: Auto One Insurance Company, petitioner-respondent, v. Juan Lopez, et al., appellants; et al., proposed additional respondents-respondents.
Argued—September 12, 2011
DECISION & ORDER
In a proceeding, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR article 75, to permanently stay arbitration of an uninsured motorist claim, Juan Lopez, Larry M. Aparicio, and Cruz Lopez–Guzman appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Whelan, J.), dated September 22, 2010, which granted the petition to the extent of temporarily staying the arbitration pending the joinder of certain additional respondents.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
CPLR 7503(c) requires that an application to stay arbitration be made within 20 days after service of a notice of intention to arbitrate (see Matter of Fiveco, Inc. v. Haber, 11 NY3d 140, 144). “[T]he timeliness of a proceeding for a stay of arbitration is measured with respect to the earlier filing of the petition, not with respect to its later service” (Matter of Government Empl. Ins. Co. v Morris, 83 AD3d 709, 710; see CPLR 304, 7502 [a]; Matter of Mendon Ponds Neighborhood Assn. v Dehm, 98 N.Y.2d 745; Matter of Scott v. Allstate Ins. Co., 45 AD3d 690; Matter of Allstate Indem. Co. v Martinezn, 4 AD3d 422). Here, it uncontested that the appellants served their notice of intention to arbitrate on April 20, 2010. The petitioner submitted proof that the instant proceeding was commenced on May 3, 2010, by the filing of a petition. Accordingly, contrary to the appellants' contention, the action was commenced within the 20–day limitation period, and thus was timely.
The appellants' remaining contentions are either improperly raised for the first time on appeal (see Jara v New York Racing Assn., Inc., 85 AD3d 1121; Panteleon v. Amaya, 85 AD3d 993), or without merit.
ANGIOLILLO, J.P., HALL, COHEN 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: 2010–10650 (Index No. 12602 /10)
Decided: October 04, 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)