IN RE: TRI-STATE CONSUMER INSURANCE COMPANY

Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

IN RE: TRI-STATE CONSUMER INSURANCE COMPANY, respondent, v. Miriam DABUSH, appellant.

Decided: September 27, 1999

GUY JAMES MANGANO, P.J., FRED T. SANTUCCI, GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, ANITA R. FLORIO and HOWARD MILLER, JJ. David P. Slater, New York, N.Y., for appellant. Murray Lemonik, Jericho, N.Y. (Barry Greenberg of counsel), for respondent.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to permanently stay arbitration of an uninsured motorist claim, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O'Shaughnessy, J.H.O.), dated November 9, 1998, which, after a hearing, granted the petition and permanently stayed arbitration.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

It is well established that the determination of the fact-finding court should not be disturbed on appeal unless the court's conclusions could not be reached by any fair interpretation of the evidence, especially in cases resting in large part on the credibility of witnesses (see, Thoreson v. Penthouse Intl., 80 N.Y.2d 490, 591 N.Y.S.2d 978, 606 N.E.2d 1369;  Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v. McMahon, 251 A.D.2d 571, 673 N.Y.S.2d 932;  Matter of Aetna Life & Cas. v. Gramazio, 242 A.D.2d 530, 662 N.Y.S.2d 273;  Syragakis v. Majestic Assocs., 240 A.D.2d 561, 659 N.Y.S.2d 984).   The Supreme Court's determination that the respondent failed to ascertain the identity of either the operators or the owners of the other vehicles involved in the accident through reasonable efforts is supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Copied to clipboard