Gittens v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gittens v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp.

7 A.D.3d 528, 775 N.Y.S.2d 571

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

DecidedMay 3, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 7 A.D.3d 528 (Gittens 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

Gittens v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp., 7 A.D.3d 528, 775 N.Y.S.2d 571 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to Insurance Law § 5218 (c) for leave to bring an action against the Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Harkavy, J.), dated April 16, 2002, which denied the petition.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the petition as time-barred. The instant proceeding was not commenced within three months from the date of entry of the judgment in favor of the defendant in the underlying action, as required under Insurance Law § 5218 (c). Although the petitioner was still an infant when the judgment in the underlying action was rendered, she failed to bring this proceeding within three months of attaining her majority (see CPLR 208). Altman, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein and Mastro, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to Insurance Law § 5218 (c) for leave to bring an action against the Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Harkavy, J.), dated April 16, 2002, which denied the petition.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the petition as time-barred. The instant proceeding was not commenced within three months from the date of entry of the judgment in favor of the defendant in the underlying action, as required under Insurance Law § 5218 (c). Although the petitioner was still an infant when the judgment in the underlying action was rendered, she failed to bring this proceeding within three months of attaining her majority (see CPLR 208). Altman, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 A.D.3d 528, 775 N.Y.S.2d 571, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gittens-v-motor-vehicle-accident-indemnification-corp-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack