| Matter of Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v Singh |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 05924 [98 AD3d 580] |
| August 8, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Metropolitan Property & Casualty InsuranceCompany, Respondent, v Sarah Singh, Appellant, et al., ProposedRespondents. |
—[*1] Congdon, Flaherty, O'Callaghan, Reid, Donlon, Travis & Fishlinger, Uniondale, N.Y. (LauraA. Endrizzi of counsel), for petitioner-respondent. Jones Jones, LLC, New York, N.Y. (Jacqueline R. Mancino of counsel), for proposedadditional respondents.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to permanently stay arbitration of an uninsuredmotorist claim, Sarah Singh appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rios,J.), entered June 30, 2011, which, without a hearing, granted the petition.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs payable by the appellant to the petitioner.
In a proceeding to permanently stay arbitration of a claim for uninsured motorist benefits, theclaimant's insurer has the initial burden of proving that the alleged offending vehicle was insuredat the time of the accident, and thereafter the burden is on the party opposing the stay to rebutthat prima facie showing (see Matter ofAmerican Intl. Ins. Co. v Giovanielli, 72 AD3d 948, 949 [2010]; Matter ofLumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v Quintero, 305 AD2d 684, 685 [2003]). Here, the petitioner,Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance Company (hereinafter Metropolitan), made a primafacie showing that the alleged offending vehicle was a bus owned by a self-insurer, the NewYork City Transit Authority (hereinafter the NYCTA), by submitting, inter alia, the policeaccident report and portions of deposition testimony from a personal injury action commenced bythe claimant [*2]against the NYCTA and related defendants(see Matter of American Intl. Ins. Co. v Giovanielli, 72 AD3d at 949; Matter of Mercury Ins. Group v Ocana,46 AD3d 561, 562 [2007]). In opposition, the claimant, Sarah Singh, did not rebutMetropolitan's prima facie showing that the offending vehicle was self-insured and, thus, theSupreme Court properly granted Metropolitan's petition to permanently stay the uninsuredmotorist arbitration (see Matter of EagleIns. Co. v Rodriguez, 15 AD3d 399, 400 [2005]; Matter of Lumbermens Mut. Cas.Co. v Quintero, 305 AD2d at 685).
Contrary to Singh's contention, the Supreme Court properly declined to make a finding offact or determination regarding the involvement of the alleged offending vehicle in the accident.That issue was not raised in the instant proceeding to permanently stay the uninsured motoristarbitration on the sole ground that the offending vehicle was self-insured, and any issuesconcerning the involvement of the alleged offending vehicle in the accident should be addressedin the personal injury action (see Matter of Insurance Co. of N. Am. v Castillo, 158AD2d 691, 692-693 [1990]).
Singh's remaining contention is without merit. Angiolillo, J.P., Dickerson, Belen andChambers, JJ., concur.