Chance v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chance v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp.

29 A.D.2d 654, 286 N.Y.S.2d 646, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4924

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

DecidedJanuary 8, 1968

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 29 A.D.2d 654 (Chance 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

Chance v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp., 29 A.D.2d 654, 286 N.Y.S.2d 646, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4924 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding for leave to bring an action against appellant (Insurance Law, § 618, subd. [a], par. [5]), order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated November 10, 1966, reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and application denied, without prejudice, to renewal on a showing of appropriate efforts to ascertain the identity of the vehicle in question and its owner and operator. In our opinion, petitioner’s failure to direct an inquiry to the Department of Motor Vehicles concerning the vehicle and partial plate number recited in the police report necessitates the conclusion that reasonable efforts were not made to ascertain the identity of the vehicle and its owner and operator, as required by section 618 (subd. [a], par. [5]) of the the Insurance Law. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Rabin, Hopkins and Munder, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding for leave to bring an action against appellant (Insurance Law, § 618, subd. [a], par. [5]), order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated November 10, 1966, reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and application denied, without prejudice, to renewal on a showing of appropriate efforts to ascertain the identity of the vehicle in question and its owner and operator. In our opinion, petitioner’s failure to direct an inquiry to the Department of Motor Vehicles concerning the vehicle and partial plate number recited in the police report necessitates the conclusion that reasonable efforts were not made to ascertain the identity of the vehicle and its owner and operator, as required by section 618 (subd. [a], par. [5]) of the the Insurance Law. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Rabin, Hopkins and Munder, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.2d 654, 286 N.Y.S.2d 646, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4924, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chance-v-motor-vehicle-accident-indemnification-corp-nyappdiv-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack