Frankl v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Frankl v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp.

53 A.D.2d 614, 384 N.Y.S.2d 20, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13298

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

DecidedJune 1, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 53 A.D.2d 614 (Frankl 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

Frankl v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp., 53 A.D.2d 614, 384 N.Y.S.2d 20, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13298 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to section 618 of the Insurance Law for permission to bring an action against the appellant, Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated November 26, 1975, which, after a hearing, granted the application. Order reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and application denied. The findings of fact are affirmed. Petitioner’s apparent knowledge of the identity of the owner of the vehicle which caused her injuries permits an action to be brought against the said owner. Only if such action ultimately fails for lack of identity, should leave to sue MVAIC be considered (see Insurance Law, § 618, subd [a]; Matter of Ruiz v MVAIC, 19 AD2d 832). Martuscello, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Damiani, Shapiro and Titone, 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 permission to bring an action against the appellant, Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated November 26, 1975, which, after a hearing, granted the application. Order reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and application denied. The findings of fact are affirmed. Petitioner’s apparent knowledge of the identity of the owner of the vehicle which caused her injuries permits an action to be brought against the said owner. Only if such action ultimately fails for lack of identity, should leave to sue MVAIC be considered (see Insurance Law, § 618, subd [a]; Matter of Ruiz v MVAIC, 19 AD2d 832). Martuscello, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Damiani, Shapiro and Titone, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 A.D.2d 614, 384 N.Y.S.2d 20, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13298, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frankl-v-motor-vehicle-accident-indemnification-corp-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack