framed-issue hearing in New York

2025"Where a triable issue of [*2]fact is raised, the Supreme Court, not the arbitrator, must determine it in a framed-issue hearing, and the appropriate procedure under such circumstances is to temporarily stay arbitration pending a determination of the issue" ( Matter of Hertz Corp. v Holmes , 106 AD3d 1001, 1003 [2013])." ( Matter of Allstate Ins.

2025"Where a triable issue of fact is raised, the Supreme Court, not the arbitrator, must determine it in a framed-issue hearing, and the appropriate procedure under such circumstances is to temporarily stay arbitration pending a determination of the issue" ( Matter of Hertz Corp. v Holmes , 106 AD3d 1001, 1003 ; see Matter of Government Empls.

2026Co. v Aizin , 102 AD3d 679 , 681 [2013]).

2026Co. v Aizin , 102 AD3d 679, 681 [2013]).

2014While the interpretation of the regulation presented a question of law, we determined that “the meaning of specialized terms in such a regulation is a question on which a court must sometimes hear evidence before making its determination” (i d. at 51, citing Millard v City of Ogdensburg, 274 AD2d 953, 954 [4th Dept 2000]), and remitted the matter to Supreme Court for a framed-issue hearing on whether “the words of the regulation can sensibly be applied to anything but completed forms” ( 9 NY3d at 51 ).

2012The Court of Appeals remanded this matter to the motion court for a framed issue hearing to determine whether the words of regulation 12 NYCRR 23-2.2 (a) “can sensibly be applied to anything but completed forms” ( 9 NY3d 47, 51 [2007]).

2014Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388 creates a strong presumption that the driver of a vehicle is operating it with the owner’s consent, which can only be rebutted by substantial evidence demonstrating that the vehicle was not operated with the owner’s permission (see Murdza v Zimmerman, 99 NY2d 375, 380 [2003]; Marino v City of New York, 95 AD3d 840, 841 [2012]; Vyrtle Trucking Corp. v Browne, 93 AD3d 716, 717 [2012]).

2010No basis exists to disturb the court’s finding, after a framed-issue hearing, that the evidence of such theft and nonpermissive use was insufficient to overcome the presumption of permissive use (see Murdza v Zimmerman, 99 NY2d 375, 380 [2003] [“substantial” evidence needed to overcome presumption of permissive use]; Thoreson v Penthouse Intl., 80 NY2d 490, 495 [1992] [fact-finding court’s decision should not be disturbed on appeal unless it is “obvious” that its conclusions could not be reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence, especially where findings of fact largely rest on wi

2014Under the particular circumstances of this case, respondents waived their statute of limitations defense when, after serving the request for arbitration a second time on July 31, 2007, they participated in the litigation for five years, during which time they failed to raise the CPLR 7503 (c) defense in their opposition to petitioner’s applications for a stay, in the prior appeal in which this Court ordered a framed issue hearing on coverage issues, or at the framed issue hearing itself (see Miraglia v H & L Holding Corp., 67 AD3d 513, 515 [1st Dept 2009], lv dismissed in part, denied in part

2014Under the particular circumstances of this case, respondents waived their statute of limitations defense when, after serving the request for arbitration a second time on July 31, 2007, they participated in the litigation for five years, during which time they failed to raise the CPLR 7503 (c) defense in their opposition to petitioner’s applications for a stay, in the prior appeal in which this Court ordered a framed issue hearing on coverage issues, or at the framed issue hearing itself (see Miraglia v H & L Holding Corp., 67 AD3d 513, 515 [1st Dept 2009], lv dismissed in part, denied in part

2014Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388 creates a strong presumption that the driver of a vehicle is operating it with the owner’s consent, which can only be rebutted by substantial evidence demonstrating that the vehicle was not operated with the owner’s permission (see Murdza v Zimmerman, 99 NY2d 375, 380 [2003]; Marino v City of New York, 95 AD3d 840, 841 [2012]; Vyrtle Trucking Corp. v Browne, 93 AD3d 716, 717 [2012]).

2014Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388 creates a strong presumption that the driver of a vehicle is operating it with the owner’s consent, which can only be rebutted by substantial evidence demonstrating that the vehicle was not operated with the owner’s permission (see Murdza v Zimmerman, 99 NY2d 375, 380 [2003]; Marino v City of New York, 95 AD3d 840, 841 [2012]; Vyrtle Trucking Corp. v Browne, 93 AD3d 716, 717 [2012]).

2014Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388 creates a strong presumption that the driver of a vehicle is operating it with the owner’s consent, which can only be rebutted by substantial evidence demonstrating that the vehicle was not operated with the owner’s permission (see Murdza v Zimmerman, 99 NY2d 375, 380 [2003]; Marino v City of New York, 95 AD3d 840, 841 [2012]; Vyrtle Trucking Corp. v Browne, 93 AD3d 716, 717 [2012]).

2014Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388 creates a strong presumption that the driver of a vehicle is operating it with the owner’s consent, which can only be rebutted by substantial evidence demonstrating that the vehicle was not operated with the owner’s permission (see Murdza v Zimmerman, 99 NY2d 375, 380 [2003]; Marino v City of New York, 95 AD3d 840, 841 [2012]; Vyrtle Trucking Corp. v Browne, 93 AD3d 716, 717 [2012]).

2013Servs., 725 F Supp 2d 130, 136 [2010]; Miranda v Universal Fin.

2013Servs., 725 F Supp 2d 130, 136 [2010]; Miranda v Universal Fin.

2025Co. v Robinson , 188 AD3d 1186, 1189 ).

2024Co. v Robinson , 188 AD3d at 1188-1189 ). "'Where a triable issue of fact is raised, the Supreme Court . . . must determine it in a framed-issue hearing'" ( Matter of Travelers Personal Ins.

2026Further, the plaintiff failed to establish that the defendants engaged in fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct with respect to the framed-issue hearing ( see Thomas v Gray , 218 AD3d 516, 517).

2026Further, the plaintiff failed to establish that the defendants engaged in fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct with respect to the framed-issue hearing ( see Thomas v Gray , 218 AD3d 516, 517 ).

2026Moreover, to the extent the plaintiff contends that this evidence was not in his possession at the time of the framed-issue hearing, he failed to adequately explain why the purportedly newly discovered evidence could not have been procured earlier through the exercise of due diligence ( see U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v McCobb , 222 AD3d 696, 697; NRT N.Y., LLC v 289 Parsonage Lane, LLC , 221 AD3d 1018, 1020).

2026Moreover, to the extent the plaintiff contends that this evidence was not in his possession at the time of the framed-issue hearing, he failed to adequately explain why the purportedly newly discovered evidence could not have been procured earlier through the exercise of due diligence ( see U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v McCobb , 222 AD3d 696, 697 ; NRT N.Y., LLC v 289 Parsonage Lane, LLC , 221 AD3d 1018, 1020 ).

2026Moreover, to the extent the plaintiff contends that this evidence was not in his possession at the time of the framed-issue hearing, he failed to adequately explain why the purportedly newly discovered evidence could not have been procured earlier through the exercise of due diligence ( see U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v McCobb , 222 AD3d 696, 697; NRT N.Y., LLC v 289 Parsonage Lane, LLC , 221 AD3d 1018, 1020).

2026Moreover, to the extent the plaintiff contends that this evidence was not in his possession at the time of the framed-issue hearing, he failed to adequately explain why the purportedly newly discovered evidence could not have been procured earlier through the exercise of due diligence ( see U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v McCobb , 222 AD3d 696, 697 ; NRT N.Y., LLC v 289 Parsonage Lane, LLC , 221 AD3d 1018, 1020 ).

2026The record demonstrates that the plaintiff possessed this evidence prior to the framed-issue hearing ( see Sieger v Sieger , 51 AD3d 1004, 1005).

2026The record demonstrates that the plaintiff possessed this evidence prior to the framed-issue hearing ( see Sieger v Sieger , 51 AD3d 1004, 1005 ).

2023Co. v Lewis , 57 AD3d 221, 222 [1st Dept 2008]; Matter of American Tr.

2022An appellate court should not, and will not, consider different theories or new questions, if proof might have been offered to refute or overcome them had those theories or questions been presented in the court of first instance ( see Rentways, Inc. v O'Neill Milk & Cream Co. , 308 NY 342, 349 [1955]; Douglas Elliman-Gibbons & Ives v Kellerman , 172 AD2d 307 [1991], lv denied 78 NY2d 856 [1991]).