Opinion
2011-12-20
In the Matter of PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, appellant, v. Stephen ALEXIS, et al., respondents-respondents, et al., respondents.
Adams, Hanson, Finder, Hughes, Rego, Kaplan and Fishbein, Yonkers, N.Y. (Michael A. Zarkower of counsel), for appellant. Dinerman Bergam & Dinerman, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Barry M. Dinerman of counsel), for respondents-respondents.
Adams, Hanson, Finder, Hughes, Rego, Kaplan and Fishbein, Yonkers, N.Y. (Michael A. Zarkower of counsel), for appellant. Dinerman Bergam & Dinerman, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Barry M. Dinerman of counsel), for respondents-respondents.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to stay arbitration of an uninsured motorist claim, the petitioner appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Onofry, J.), dated September 3, 2010, as denied that branch of the petition which was to direct disclosure in aid of arbitration pursuant to CPLR 3102 (c).
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The petitioner commenced this proceeding to stay arbitration of an uninsured motorist claim. As part of its application, the petitioner requested disclosure in aid of arbitration pursuant to CPLR 3102(c).
The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the petition which was to direct disclosure in aid of arbitration pursuant to CPLR 3102(c), as the petitioner failed to demonstrate that “extraordinary circumstances” existed such that this relief would be absolutely necessary for the protection of its rights ( De Sapio v. Kohlmeyer, 35 N.Y.2d 402, 406, 362 N.Y.S.2d 843, 321 N.E.2d 770 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Government Empls. Ins. Co. v. Morris, 83 A.D.3d 709, 710, 919 N.Y.S.2d 908; Matter of Travelers Indem. Co. v. United Diagnostic Imaging, P.C., 73 A.D.3d 791, 791–792, 899 N.Y.S.2d 641).