Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v. Laldharry

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to permanently stay arbitration of a claim for uninsured motorist benefits, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Raffaele, J.), dated February 25, 2014, which, after a hearing, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements. *815 The respondents Latchminee Laldharry and Bhayvita Laldharry sought uninsured motorist benefits after they were allegedly injured in a hit-and-run motor vehicle accident. The petitioner Allstate Insurance Company (hereinafter Allstate) commenced this proceeding to permanently stay arbitration of the respondents’ claim. After a framed-issue hearing, the Supreme Court denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding. Allstate appeals. “Generally, under New York statutory and case law, a court may address three threshold questions on a motion to compel or to stay arbitration: (1) whether the parties made a valid agreement to arbitrate; (2) if so, whether the agreement has been complied with; and (3) whether the claim sought to be arbitrated would be time-barred if it were asserted in State court” (Morales v American Apparel, Inc., 113 AD3d 659, 660 [2014] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see CPLR 7503 [b]; Matter of County of Nassau v Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., Inc., 14 AD3d 509, 509 [2005]). Here, Allstate does not allege, pursuant to CPLR 7503 (b), that the parties did not have an agreement to arbitrate or that the respondents’ claim was time-barred. Further, while Allstate alleged that the respondents failed to comply with the terms of the uninsured motorist provisions of the subject policy, it did not submit a copy of the portions of the policy which allegedly contained those terms (see American Ind. Ins. Co. v Art of Healing Medicine, P.C., 104 AD3d 761, 762 [2013]; Matter of Global Liberty Ins. Co. v Abdelhaq, 36 AD3d 909, 910 [2007]). Accordingly, Allstate failed to demonstrate that it was entitled to a permanent stay of arbitration based upon the respondents’ alleged failure to comply with the terms of the subject policy (cf. Matter of Government Empls. Ins. Co. v Bartlett, 112 AD3d 826, 827 [2013]; Matter of Government Empls. Ins. Co. v Balk, 94 AD3d 888, 889 [2012]; Matter of Interboro Mut. Indem. Ins. Co. v Napolitano, 232 AD2d 561, 562 [1996]). Under the circumstances, Allstate’s petition was properly denied and the proceeding to permanently stay arbitration properly dismissed. Balkin, J.P., Austin, Miller and Maltese, JJ., concur.