Calabrese v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Calabrese v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp.

43 A.D.2d 970, 352 N.Y.S.2d 221, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5700

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

DecidedFebruary 19, 1974

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 43 A.D.2d 970 (Calabrese 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

Calabrese v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp., 43 A.D.2d 970, 352 N.Y.S.2d 221, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5700 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to section 618 of the Insurance Law for leave to bring an action against the Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated June 21, 1972, which denied the application. Order reversed, without costs, and proceeding remitted to the Special Term for a hearing and a new determination, in accordance with the views herein set forth. We hold as a matter of law that a parole officer is a peace officer within the meaning of subdivision (b) of section 608 of the Insurance Law. However, we are of the opinion that triable issues of fact are presented on the question of whether the reporting of the alleged hit-añdrun accident to the parole officer 28 hours after its occurrence was done, as set forth in the above-mentioned statute, as soon as was “reasonably possible”. In light of the foregoing, the fact that the Police Department was notified of the alleged accident five days after its occurrence is not relevant to a proper determination of the proceeding. Gulotta, P. J., Hopkins, Martuscello, Latham and Brennan, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to section 618 of the Insurance Law for leave to bring an action against the Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated June 21, 1972, which denied the application. Order reversed, without costs, and proceeding remitted to the Special Term for a hearing and a new determination, in accordance with the views herein set forth. We hold as a matter of law that a parole officer is a peace officer within the meaning of subdivision (b) of section 608 of the Insurance Law. However, we are of the opinion that triable issues of fact are presented on the question of whether the reporting of the alleged hit-añdrun accident to the parole officer 28 hours after its occurrence was done, as set forth in the above-mentioned statute, as soon as was “reasonably possible”. In light of the foregoing, the fact that the Police Department was notified of the alleged accident five days after its occurrence is not relevant to a proper determination of the proceeding. Gulotta, P. J., Hopkins, Martuscello, Latham and Brennan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 A.D.2d 970, 352 N.Y.S.2d 221, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5700, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/calabrese-v-motor-vehicle-accident-indemnification-corp-nyappdiv-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack