AIU Ins. v. Fernandez, 281 A.D.2d 542 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001). · Go Syfert
AIU Ins. v. Fernandez, 281 A.D.2d 542 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
7 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Travelers Property Casualty Corp. v. Bocharova (nyappdiv, 2003-12-08)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Travelers Property Casualty Corp. v. Bocharova
N.Y. App. Div. · 2003 · confidence medium
Co. v Fernandez, 281 AD2d 542, 543 [2001]; see Presbyterian Hosp. v New York Cent.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Juarbe v. City of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 2003 · confidence medium
Co. v Fernandez, 281 AD2d 542, 543 [2001]; Poincy v White Bus Co., 278 AD2d 467 [2000]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of AIU Insurance Company
v.
Jerry Fernandez
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Mar 19, 2001.
281 A.D.2d 542
2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2606
Cited by 7 opinions  |  Published

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to permanently stay arbitration of an uninsured motorist claim, Jerry Fernandez appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Davis, J.), dated March 3, 2000, which denied his motion to vacate a prior order of the same court, dated September 13, 1999, grant[*543] ing the petition and permanently staying arbitration upon his default in appearing.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

To vacate the order entered upon his default in appearing in opposition to the petition to permanently stay arbitration, the appellant was obligated to establish both a reasonable excuse for the default and the existence of a meritorious defense (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Presbyterian Hosp. v New York Cent. Mut. Ins. Co., 277 AD2d 299; McGee v McAleer, 277 AD2d 207). The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the appellant’s motion, as he failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his default (see, McGee v McAleer, supra; U.S. Dental v Hart Armonk Assocs., 277 AD2d 221; Phillips, Nizer, Benjamin, Krim & Ballon v Matteo, 271 AD2d 422). In light of this conclusion, we need not consider whether the appellant established the existence of a meritorious defense (see, Phillips, Nizer, Benjamin, Krim & Ballon v Matteo, supra). Bracken, P. J., S. Miller, McGinity and Schmidt, JJ., concur.