Alam v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Alam v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp.

127 A.D.3d 585, 7 N.Y.S.3d 135

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 21, 2015

Docket14891

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 127 A.D.3d 585 (Alam v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alam v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp., 127 A.D.3d 585, 7 N.Y.S.3d 135 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

*586 Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mary Ann BriganttiHughes, J.), entered March 14, 2014, which, in an action to recover for personal injuries allegedly sustained in a hit-and-run accident, denied the petition seeking leave under Insurance Law § 5218 to bring an action against respondent, Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, and the petition granted, without costs.

Petitioner met his burden of demonstrating that the subject accident was one in which the identity of the owner and operator of the subject motor vehicle was not ascertainable through reasonable efforts (see Insurance Law § 5218 [b] [5]; Cardona v Martinez, 61 AD3d 462 [1st Dept 2009]).

Petitioner was injured after being struck by a vehicle while crossing the street as he headed to his mosque for a prayer service. The driver pulled over, exited the vehicle, and approached petitioner. In response to the driver’s multiple inquiries, plaintiff told the driver that he was fine. A few minutes later, the driver left the scene. Petitioner did not obtain the driver’s contact information or the license plate number of the vehicle, and proceeded on to the mosque.

Petitioner testified, without opposition, that he did not believe he was seriously hurt in the moments after the accident. Petitioner’s testimony that he felt pain in his left foot in the immediate aftermath of the accident does not necessarily compel a different result. His failure to seek immediate medical attention only confirms his initial belief that he was not significantly hurt. Because petitioner did not believe he was seriously hurt, it was reasonable that he did not ask the driver for identifying information at that time. (Matter of Riemenschneider [Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp.], 20 NY2d 547, 549-551 [1967]).

Once he knew he was seriously injured, petitioner undertook reasonable efforts to ascertain the identity of vehicle owner or operator. Petitioner testified that he filed a police report, canvassed the mosque and surrounding area to locate possible eyewitnesses, and obtained surveillance footage depicting the accident location, all of which ultimately proved unhelpful in identifying the operator or license plate number of the vehicle.

Concur — Acosta, J.P., Saxe, Richter, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*586 Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mary Ann BriganttiHughes, J.), entered March 14, 2014, which, in an action to recover for personal injuries allegedly sustained in a hit-and-run accident, denied the petition seeking leave under Insurance Law § 5218 to bring an action against respondent, Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, and the petition granted, without costs.

Petitioner met his burden of demonstrating that the subject accident was one in which the identity of the owner and operator of the subject motor vehicle was not ascertainable through reasonable efforts (see Insurance Law § 5218 [b] [5]; Cardona v Martinez, 61 AD3d 462 [1st Dept 2009]).

Petitioner was injured after being struck by a vehicle while crossing the street as he headed to his mosque for a prayer service. The driver pulled over, exited the vehicle, and approached petitioner. In response to the driver’s multiple inquiries, plaintiff told the driver that he was fine. A few minutes later, the driver left the scene. Petitioner did not obtain the driver’s contact information or the license plate number of the vehicle, and proceeded on to the mosque.

Petitioner testified, without opposition, that he did not believe he was seriously hurt in the moments after the accident. Petitioner’s testimony that he felt pain in his left foot in the immediate aftermath of the accident does not necessarily compel a different result. His failure to seek immediate medical attention only confirms his initial belief that he was not significantly hurt. Because petitioner did not believe he was seriously hurt, it was reasonable that he did not ask the driver for identifying information at that time. (Matter of Riemenschneider [Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp.], 20 NY2d 547, 549-551 [1967]).

Once he knew he was seriously injured, petitioner undertook reasonable efforts to ascertain the identity of vehicle owner or operator. Petitioner testified that he filed a police report, canvassed the mosque and surrounding area to locate possible eyewitnesses, and obtained surveillance footage depicting the accident location, all of which ultimately proved unhelpful in identifying the operator or license plate number of the vehicle.

Concur — Acosta, J.P., Saxe, Richter, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 A.D.3d 585, 7 N.Y.S.3d 135, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alam-v-motor-vehicle-accident-indemnification-corp-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack