LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE v. RONDINA

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Respondents served their automobile insurer, petitioner, with a demand for arbitration after petitioner refused to provide uninsured motorist coverage for injuries sustained by respondents' son while he was a passenger on an uninsured allterrain vehicle (ATV). Contrary to respondents' contention, Supreme Court properly granted petitioner's application pursuant to CPLR 7503 (c) for a permanent stay of arbitration on the ground that respondents' claim is not within the scope of petitioner's uninsured motorist coverage. "As a matter of law, [uninsured motorist] coverage extends to all motor vehicles as defined by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 125" ( Harper v Lumbermen's Mut. Cas. Co., 174 AD 2d 1031, 1031, lv dismissed 78 NY2d 1110; see Insurance Law § 5202 [a]; Matter of Askey [General Ace. Fire Life Assur. Corp.], 30 AD2d 632, affd 24 NY2d 937). Because ATVs are specifically excluded from the definition of motor vehicles set forth in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 125, the court properly concluded that the uninsured motorist endorsement in the policy issued by petitioner to respondents does not encompass the claim for the injuries sustained by respondents' son ( see Harper, 174 AD2d 1031; cf. Matter of Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v Riccadulli, 183 AD2d 111).