Allstate N.J. Ins. Co. v Tse

Annotate this Case
Allstate N.J. Ins. Co. v Tse 2013 NY Slip Op 00136 Decided on January 10, 2013 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on January 10, 2013
Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Acosta, Abdus-Salaam, Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
8991N 101820/12

[*1]Allstate New Jersey Insurance Company, Petitioner-Appellant,

v

John Tse, et al., Respondents-Respondents.




Sweetbaum & Sweetbaum, Lake Success (Marshall D.
Sweetbaum of counsel), for appellant.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (George J. Silver, J.), entered July 10, 2012, which denied the petition to stay arbitration of an underinsured motorist claim in the underlying personal injury action and dismissed the proceeding, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the petition granted.

Respondents' October 23, 2007 letter, which explicitly advised Allstate of a "potential claim under the Uninsured/Underinsured provision of the above-policy," and January 31, 2011 letter, which stated "[w]e will now be moving forward on our client's underinsured motorist claim," fail to include the requisite notice provision contained in CPLR § 7503(c) to constitute a sufficient notice to arbitrate (see Matter of Blamowski [Munson Transp.], 91 NY2d 190, 195 [1997]); Cooper v Bruckner, 21 AD3d 758, 759-60 [1st Dept 2005]). Accordingly, the 20 day limitation period terminating petitioner's right to contest the obligation to arbitrate did not start to run until a proper demand for arbitration, containing the requisite language, was served by mail on February 7, 2012. Petitioner's motion to stay the arbitration, served on February
24, 2012, was therefore timely.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: JANUARY 10, 2013

CLERK

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.