Caceres v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Caceres v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp.

37 A.D.3d 215, 829 N.Y.S.2d 487

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 8, 2007·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Richard F. Braun, J.), entered August 16, 2005, which granted the petition for leave to bring an action against respondent, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the order and judgment vacated and the matter remanded for an evidentiary hearing.

Where, as here, a question exists as to whether an accident report was timely filed pursuant to Insurance Law § 5208 (a) (2) (A), “and the issue cannot be resolved without a determination of the credibility of [the petitioner],” an evidentiary hearing is appropriate (Matter of Country Wide Ins. Co. [Russo], 201 AD2d 368, 370-371 [1994]). Although respondent did not answer the petition pursuant to CPLR 402, the pleading omission should have been disregarded since respondent’s affirmation opposing the relief sought by petitioner challenged petitioner’s assertion that she had satisfied the requirements of Insurance Law § 5218 (see CPLR 2001). Under the circumstances, the matter should have been set down for a hearing pursuant to CPLR 410. Concur—Sullivan, J.E, Williams, Gonzalez, Sweeny and Kavanagh, JJ.

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

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Richard F. Braun, J.), entered August 16, 2005, which granted the petition for leave to bring an action against respondent, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the order and judgment vacated and the matter remanded for an evidentiary hearing.

Where, as here, a question exists as to whether an accident report was timely filed pursuant to Insurance Law § 5208 (a) (2) (A), “and the issue cannot be resolved without a determination of the credibility of [the petitioner],” an evidentiary hearing is appropriate (Matter of Country Wide Ins. Co. [Russo], 201 AD2d 368, 370-371 [1994]). Although respondent did not answer the petition pursuant to CPLR 402, the pleading omission should have been disregarded since respondent’s affirmation opposing the relief sought by petitioner challenged petitioner’s assertion that she had satisfied the requirements of Insurance Law § 5218 (see CPLR 2001). Under the circumstances, the matter should have been set down for a hearing pursuant to CPLR 410. Concur—Sullivan, J.E, Williams, Gonzalez, Sweeny and Kavanagh, JJ.

Caceres v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp., 37 A.D.3d 215, 829 N.Y.S.2d 487 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

37 A.D.3d 215 (Caceres v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related