IN RE: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY

Reset A A Font size: Print

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

IN RE: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, respondent, v. Helen GOLDSTEIN, appellant.

Decided: November 28, 2006

THOMAS A. ADAMS, J.P., GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, STEVEN W. FISHER, and ROBERT A. LIFSON, JJ. Barry Siskin, New York, N.Y., for appellant. James P. Nunemaker, Jr., Uniondale, N.Y. (Joseph G. Gallo of counsel), for respondent.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75, inter alia, to temporarily stay arbitration of an uninsured motorist claim, Helen Goldstein appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (LaMarca, J.), entered September 30, 2005, as granted the petition to the extent of staying the arbitration for a period of 90 days and directing her to provide certain discovery.

ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order as stayed the arbitration for a period of 90 days is dismissed, without costs or disbursements;  and it is further,

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.

 By its terms, the temporary stay of arbitration granted in favor of the petitioner expired 90 days from September 26, 2005, the date of the order granting the temporary stay.   Therefore, so much of the appeal as challenges the temporary stay must be dismissed as academic (see Matter of Ellwanger v. Ellwanger, 31 A.D.3d 447, 817 N.Y.S.2d 518;  Matter of Rochester v. Rochester, 26 A.D.3d 387, 809 N.Y.S.2d 178).

 Under the circumstances of this case, although “ample time” (New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Gershovich, 1 A.D.3d 364, 766 N.Y.S.2d 596) elapsed between the appellant's June 10, 1999, notification to her insurer, the petitioner, of a possible uninsured motorist claim and the actual demand for an uninsured motorist arbitration in June 2005, the three letters seeking disclosure, which the petitioner sent to the appellant's attorney between October 6, 2004, and February 28, 2005, and which went unanswered, clearly manifested the petitioner's intent to pursue its policy rights to obtain disclosure and that the petitioner did not fail to pursue the opportunity to obtain disclosure (see State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. v. Bautista, 11 A.D.3d 471, 782 N.Y.S.2d 372;  cf. Matter of State-Wide Ins. Co. v. Womble, 25 A.D.3d 713, 811 N.Y.S.2d 707).   Therefore, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in directing the appellant to provide pre-arbitration discovery (see State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Bautista, supra ).

The appellant's remaining contention is without merit.

Copied to clipboard