Barillas v. Rivera

32 A.D.3d 872, 820 N.Y.S.2d 803
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedSeptember 19, 2006
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 32 A.D.3d 872 (Barillas v. Rivera) 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
Barillas v. Rivera, 32 A.D.3d 872, 820 N.Y.S.2d 803 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation, appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lewis, J.), dated July 22, 2005, as, in effect, upon reargument, adhered to its prior determination in an order dated January 21, 2005, granting the plaintiffs cross motion to compel it to defend the defendant Roy W. Luck in the action.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with one bill of costs, upon, in effect, reargument, the cross motion is denied, and so much of the order dated January 21, 2005 as granted the plaintiffs cross motion to compel the nonparty to defend the defendant Roy W. Luck in the action is vacated.

The plaintiff failed to demonstrate that she was a “qualified” person entitled to benefits from the nonparty Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation (hereinafter MVAIC) (Insurance Law § 5202 [b]; see Insurance Law § 5208 [a] [1]; Matter of Rice v Allstate Ins. Co., 32 NY2d 6, 10 [1973]; Kilpatrick v Utica Ave. Auto Sales, 270 AD2d 233 [2000]; Matter of Kenyon, 105 AD2d 530 [1984]).

Accordingly, upon, in effect, reargument, the Supreme Court should have denied the plaintiffs cross motion to compel MVAIC to appear on behalf of and defend the defendant Roy W Luck in the action. Miller, J.P., Luciano, Rivera and Spolzino, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Maiga Prods. Corp. v. MVAIC
68 Misc. 3d 131(A) (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Longevity Med. Supply, Inc. v. MVAIC
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019
T & S Med. Supply Corp. v. MVAIC
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017
Advanced Chiropractic of NY, P.C. v. MVAIC
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017
Miller v. Mack
90 A.D.3d 1003 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Knight v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp.
62 A.D.3d 665 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Naula v. Dela Puente
48 A.D.3d 434 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
32 A.D.3d 872, 820 N.Y.S.2d 803, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barillas-v-rivera-nyappdiv-2006.