The respondent in the case is the Allstate Insurance Company. According to a Long Island Personal Injury Lawyer, the respondent is represented by Charles F. Brady for counsel, from the Benjamin Purvin law firm located in Lake Success. The appellant in the case is Carlos Casanova. The appellant is represented by Kenneth Popper for counsel, from the Joseph Greene law firm located in Rego Park.
The case is being heard in the Second Department of the Supreme Court in the Appellate Division. The judges overseeing the case are Kunzeman, J.P., Weinstein, Kooper, and Balletta, JJ.
The appeal issued in this case is from the Kings County Supreme Court, overseen by Justice Levine. The appeal is dated the 8th of February, 1988 and seeks to stay the arbitration of an uninsured motorist claim. The order grants the petition to staying the arbitration until the Court decides the outcome of a personal injury case titled, Casanova versus New York Telephone.
The Court now orders that the order is changed, on the law. The new order will delete the phrase that states “the court in Casanova versus New York Telephone” to be substituted by the phrase “this court.” The changes affirm the order with the costs of the order being the responsibility of the appellant. A New York Injury Lawyer said the matter is now submitted to the Kings County Supreme Court to proceed further.
There are many instances that may occur that will require you to gain legal representation. If you have been injured or have another type of legal situation come up, the law offices of Stephen Bilkis & Associates offers free consultations. The offices of Stephen Bilkis & Associates are located throughout the metropolitan area of New York City. When you set up a consultation you will be informed of your legal rights in the matter at hand and the lawyers from Stephen Bilkis & Associates will be able to lead you through the case at hand.
Considerations of the Court
In a case such as this, the petitioner insurer is not part of the personal injury action that has been commenced by the appellant. The personal injury action pertains to the owner and driver of the vehicle that was involved in the car accident with the appellant. The owner of the vehicle in question is New York Telephone.
In this case the res judicata doctrine or the doctrine of collateral estoppels can be invoked to bind the company to a determination therein. This is in reference to the case of American Motorists Insurance Company versus the North Country Motors.
In this case there is a genuine issue of threshold and the appropriate course of action is to stay arbitration pending the resolution of the issue at a preliminary trial or at an evidentiary hearing. The evidentiary hearing will be held in the Kings County Supreme Court.
A Manhattan Personal Injury Lawyer said that according to the evidence in the case, this Court finds that the stay of arbitration is issued and is pending the non permissive use issue in the personal injury case. The non permissive use issue can be brought up at the evidentiary hearing. The evidentiary hearing will be held in the Kings County Supreme Court. At this time the driver of the vehicle and the self-insured/owner of the vehicle in question may be subpoenaed to testify in the case.