The Judgment New York Supreme Court form is a legal document used to record the decisions made by the New York Supreme Court. It serves as an official record of the court's ruling on various matters, including disputes over arbitration and insurance claims. Understanding this form is essential for anyone involved in legal proceedings in New York, as it outlines the court's findings and the implications of its judgment.
The Judgment New York Supreme Court form is a crucial document that plays a significant role in the legal process, particularly in cases involving arbitration disputes. This form is utilized by parties seeking to either initiate or respond to a legal proceeding, specifically in the context of insurance claims related to uninsured or underinsured motorist benefits. In this instance, the petitioner, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, filed a notice of petition to permanently stay arbitration demanded by the respondents, Fanny Tigre and Teresa Hernandez. The form outlines the procedural steps taken, including the filing of the original and amended petitions, and highlights key issues surrounding jurisdiction and service of process. It also details the arguments from both sides, including Liberty Mutual's claims regarding the insurance status of the involved vehicle and the respondents' challenges to the validity of the service. The intricacies of this form reflect the importance of adhering to specific legal requirements, such as proper service methods and compliance with established timelines, which can significantly impact the outcome of the case. Understanding these elements is essential for anyone navigating the complexities of the New York legal system.
This form is applicable to civil matters, particularly those involving disputes over insurance claims and arbitration issues, not just criminal cases.
While individuals may attempt to complete the form on their own, a basic understanding of the legal process is crucial to ensure that all requirements are met and to avoid jurisdictional defects.
Service must adhere to specific legal standards, such as being conducted via certified mail or in the same manner as a summons. Failure to comply can lead to the dismissal of the case.
Even minor errors, such as an incorrect return date or improper service, can render the petition jurisdictionally defective, impacting the court's ability to hear the case.
The court will evaluate the merits of the case based on the evidence and arguments presented, and a ruling is not guaranteed simply by submitting the form.
This form may also be used to seek other forms of relief, such as a stay of proceedings or compliance with insurance policy provisions, depending on the circumstances.
While individuals may represent themselves, having legal counsel can provide valuable guidance and increase the likelihood of a favorable outcome.
When filling out the Judgment New York Supreme Court form, it is essential to follow specific guidelines to ensure your submission is valid and effective. Below is a list of nine things you should and shouldn't do:
Following these guidelines can help you navigate the process more smoothly and avoid potential pitfalls in your case.
The Judgment New York Supreme Court form shares similarities with several other legal documents, each serving specific purposes within the judicial system. Here are seven documents that are comparable:
Short Form Order and Judgment
NEW YORK SUPREME COURT - QUEENS COUNTY
Present: HONORABLE JAIME A. RIOS
IA PART 8
Justice
_____________________________________
X
Index
LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Number 14682/04
Petitioner,
Motion
Date September 1, 2004
- against -
FANNY TIGRE and TERESA HERNANDEZ,
Cal. Number 20
Respondents,
- and -
JOHANNA MARTINEZ,
Proposed Add’l. Respondent.
The following papers numbered 1 to 7 were read on this amended notice of petition and petition by the petitioner, pursuant to CPLR article 75, seeking to permanently stay the arbitration demanded by the respondents or alternative relief.
Papers
Numbered
Notice of
Petition - Affidavits
- Exhibits
1-4
Answering
Affidavits - Exhibits
..................
5-7
Upon the foregoing papers it is ordered that the amended notice of petition and petition are determined as follows:
The threshold issue presented in this proceeding to permanently stay an arbitration for uninsured motorist insurance benefits is whether service of the original petition and amended notice of petition and petition were jurisdictionally defective.
The genesis of the controversy was a letter dated October 4, 2002, wherein the attorney for the respondents Fanny Tigre and Teresa Hernandez (the respondents), advised the petitioner Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (Liberty Mutual), of the respondents’ notice of intention to make a claim for
uninsured/underinsured benefits based upon an accident that occurred on September 4, 2002.
By demand dated June 1, 2004 and received by Liberty Mutual on June 7, 2004, the respondents, through their attorney, sought arbitration of their claim for such benefits.
Court records disclose that Liberty Mutual filed a notice of petition and petition to permanently stay the arbitration on June 25, 2004; however, the notice of petition bore a return date of June 27, 2004, a period of two days, and there is no affidavit of service in the record. In any event, on June 30, 2004, Liberty Mutual served an amended notice of petition bearing a return date of July 27, 2004.
Annexed to the amended notice of petition is an affidavit of service which initially states that service was made by certified mail, return receipt requested; however, Liberty Mutual has not produced the return receipt or other evidence of such mailing. Moreover, the affidavit of service also states that service was accomplished by regular mail, and the respondents’ attorney has produced an envelope demonstrating that the amended notice was served on him by regular mail.
In its petition Liberty Mutual seeks, inter alia, a permanent stay on the ground that the adverse vehicle had insurance coverage. In the alternative, it seeks leave to join the driver of the offending vehicle, and a temporary stay pending a hearing on the issue of coverage. In addition, Liberty Mutual seeks an order directing the respondents’ compliancy with the insurance policy provisions mandating discovery.
The respondents oppose the petition contending, inter alia, that: (1) the original notice of petition was a nullity as it bore an incorrect return date; (2) the amended notice of petition was a nullity as it was served by regular mail rather than in a manner required by CPLR 7503; (3) Liberty Mutual failed to demonstrate that the offending vehicle was insured; and, (4) Liberty Mutual waived its right to discovery.
Pursuant to CPLR 304, a special proceeding is commenced by the delivery of a notice of petition and petition to the clerk of the court in the county in which the special proceeding is brought, and the payment of the filing fee (see Matter of One Beacon Ins. Co./CGU Ins. Co. v Daly, 7 AD3d 717 [2004]; Matter of Allstate Indem. Co. v Martinez, 4 AD3d 422 [2004]; CPLR 304).
With respect to service, CPLR 7503[c] provides that notice of an application to stay arbitration shall be served in the same
-2-
manner as a summons or by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested (see CPLR 7503[c]). The service requirements of CPLR 7503 have been strictly construed, and it has been held repeatedly that service by ordinary mail renders the application jurisdictionally defective (see Matter of Yak Taxi v Teke, 41 NY2d 1020 [1977]; Matter of N.Y. Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v Czumaj, 9 AD3d 833 [2004]; Matter of Cartier v County of Nassau, 281 AD2d 477 [2001]; Matter of Progressive Ins. Co., 235 AD2d 704 [1997]).
Although CPLR 7503[c] permits service of an application to stay arbitration upon a claimant’s attorney if the attorney’ s name appears on the demand for arbitration or the notice of intention to arbitrate, at all times service must be made in the same manner as a summons or by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested (see Matter of Yak Taxi, Inc. v Teke, supra; CPLR 7503[c]).
Here, with respect to the original notice of petition and petition, Liberty failed to demonstrate proper service. Moreover, it was jurisdictionally defective as it failed to give adequate notice of the return date to the respondents (see Matter of Cartier v County of Nassau, supra; Matter of Hawkins v McCall, 278 AD2d 638 [2000], lv denied, 96 NY2d 713 [2001]; CPLR 403[b], [c]).
With respect to the amended notice of petition, Liberty failed to produce any proof of service upon the respondents in accordance with CPLR 7503[c], and the respondents demonstrated that the amended notice of petition was served on their attorney only by regular mail.
As a result, the amended notice of petition and petition are also jurisdictionally defective (see Matter of Yak Taxi v Teke, supra; Matter of N.Y. Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v Czumaj, supra; Matter of Cartier v County of Nassau, supra; Matter of Progressive Ins. Co., supra).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the proceeding is dismissed.
Dated: December 10, 2004
______________________________
J.S.C.
-3-
The Judgment New York Supreme Court form is a legal document used to record decisions made by the New York Supreme Court. It typically includes details about the parties involved, the nature of the case, and the court's ruling. This form is essential for ensuring that all parties are aware of the court's decision and can reference it in future proceedings if necessary.
Any party involved in a legal proceeding can file a Judgment form. This includes plaintiffs, defendants, and their legal representatives. In cases where a party seeks to stay arbitration or contest a decision, they must properly complete and submit this form to the court to initiate the process.
There are several reasons a party might file a Judgment form, including:
The Judgment form typically requires the following information:
If the Judgment form is not filed correctly, it may lead to delays in the legal process or even dismissal of the case. Courts are strict about procedural requirements, and failing to meet them can result in jurisdictional defects. It's crucial to ensure that all information is accurate and that the form is submitted in accordance with court rules.
Yes, you can contest a Judgment made by the court. This usually involves filing a motion to appeal or requesting a reconsideration of the ruling. It's important to act quickly, as there are often strict deadlines for filing such motions. Consulting with a legal professional can provide guidance on the best course of action.
You can find the Judgment form on the official New York State Unified Court System website or at your local courthouse. Many forms are available online for download, making it easier for individuals to access the necessary documents for their cases.
After you fill out the Judgment form for the New York Supreme Court, you will need to file it with the court. Make sure to keep a copy for your records. It is important to follow each step carefully to ensure that your submission is complete and correct.
When filling out the Judgment New York Supreme Court form, individuals often make several common mistakes that can jeopardize their case. Understanding these errors can help ensure that the form is completed correctly and effectively.
One frequent mistake is failing to provide accurate information regarding the parties involved. It is essential to list all relevant parties, including the petitioner and respondents, accurately. Omitting a party or misspelling names can lead to confusion and potential dismissal of the case.
Another common error is incorrect or incomplete service of the notice of petition. The law requires that the notice be served in a specific manner, typically by certified mail with a return receipt requested. Using ordinary mail instead can render the application jurisdictionally defective, as demonstrated in various court rulings.
Many people also overlook the importance of including a proper return date on the notice of petition. If the return date is incorrect or does not comply with legal requirements, it can be deemed a nullity, causing delays or dismissals. This aspect is crucial for ensuring that all parties are adequately informed of the timeline for responding.
Additionally, some individuals fail to attach necessary supporting documents, such as affidavits of service. These documents serve as proof that the required notifications were sent and received. Without them, the court may question the validity of the service, further complicating the case.
Another mistake involves misunderstanding the requirements for demonstrating coverage of the offending vehicle. Petitioners must provide clear evidence that the vehicle in question was insured. Failing to do so can weaken the petition and lead to its dismissal.
Lastly, individuals often neglect to comply with discovery provisions outlined in their insurance policy. Not adhering to these requirements can be viewed as a waiver of rights, potentially undermining the petitioner's position. Understanding and following these provisions is vital for a successful outcome.
New York Sw Management - The structure of the application form provides a clear roadmap for applicants on how to successfully navigate the leasing process.
New York State Tax Forms - Real property tax credits are available, offering relief for homeowners based on their property tax payments.
Inheritance Tax Limits - Filing this form correctly can prevent penalties by securing an approved extension from the onset.