Francis v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Francis v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp.

41 A.D.2d 556, 340 N.Y.S.2d 2, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5265

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

DecidedJanuary 22, 1973

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 41 A.D.2d 556 (Francis 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

Francis v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp., 41 A.D.2d 556, 340 N.Y.S.2d 2, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5265 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to section 618 of the Insurance Law for leave to bring an action against appellant, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated April 25, 1972, which granted the application. Order reversed, without [557]*557costs, and proceeding remitted to Special Term for a hearing and a new determination in accordance with the views set forth herein. Respondent claims that her infant daughter was injured when hit by a truck which ran through a red traffic light and failed to stop after the accident. It is further claimed that the hospital emergency room record indicates that a certain patrolman (identified by a shield number) was notified and that this constitutes the notification to the Police Department within 24 hours required by the statute (Insurance Law, § 608, subd. [b]). On the other hand, appellant claims the patrolman in question denied knowledge of the accident and the police have no report thereof. In our opinion, a triable issue of fact is presented whether the required notification to the Police Department was given (Matter of Edwards v. MVAIC, 36 A D 2d 841). Munder, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Gulotta, Brennan and Benjamin, 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 appellant, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated April 25, 1972, which granted the application. Order reversed, without [557]*557costs, and proceeding remitted to Special Term for a hearing and a new determination in accordance with the views set forth herein. Respondent claims that her infant daughter was injured when hit by a truck which ran through a red traffic light and failed to stop after the accident. It is further claimed that the hospital emergency room record indicates that a certain patrolman (identified by a shield number) was notified and that this constitutes the notification to the Police Department within 24 hours required by the statute (Insurance Law, § 608, subd. [b]). On the other hand, appellant claims the patrolman in question denied knowledge of the accident and the police have no report thereof. In our opinion, a triable issue of fact is presented whether the required notification to the Police Department was given (Matter of Edwards v. MVAIC, 36 A D 2d 841). Munder, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Gulotta, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 A.D.2d 556, 340 N.Y.S.2d 2, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5265, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/francis-v-motor-vehicle-accident-indemnification-corp-nyappdiv-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack