Chocko v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp.

20 A.D.2d 728, 248 N.Y.S.2d 170, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4333
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 24, 1964
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 20 A.D.2d 728 (Chocko 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
Chocko v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp., 20 A.D.2d 728, 248 N.Y.S.2d 170, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4333 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to statute (Insurance Law, § 618), by petitioner as administratrix of the decedent’s estate, for permission to institute an action against the Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation (MVAIC) to recover damages for the decedent’s wrongful death and for conscious pain and suffering, the MVAIC appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered July 10, 1962 which granted the application. Order reversed on the law and the facts, without costs, and application denied, without costs. Findings of fact implicit in the order appealed from which are inconsistent herewith are reversed and new findings are made as indicated herein. The record discloses substantial evidence of identification of the apparent hit and run driver of the vehicle which was caused to run over petitioner’s intestate. Under the circumstances, the pending action against the registered owner and apparent operator of the vehicle should be prosecuted to a conclusion. If the action is unsuccessful for lack of identity of the driver, or if the action is successful but the judgment is uncollectible for lack of insurance coverage, then only should leave to sue the MVAIC be considered, provided that the petitioner has complied with the conditions prescribed and has made the application within the time limited by statute (Insurance Law, §§ 618, 620; Matter of Ruiz v. MV AIC, 19 A D 2d 832). Kleinfeld, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Collado v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp.
103 A.D.3d 714 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Neubert v. Maryland Automobile Insurance Fund
337 A.2d 59 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1975)
Brown v. Unsatisfied Claim & Judgment Fund Board
311 A.2d 773 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1973)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
20 A.D.2d 728, 248 N.Y.S.2d 170, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4333, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chocko-v-motor-vehicle-accident-indemnification-corp-nyappdiv-1964.