Hinton v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hinton v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp.

294 A.D.2d 159, 742 N.Y.S.2d 33, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4809

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

DecidedMay 9, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 294 A.D.2d 159 (Hinton 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

Hinton v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp., 294 A.D.2d 159, 742 N.Y.S.2d 33, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4809 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton Tingling, J.), entered on or about August 16, 2001, granting plaintiffs motion for summary judgment declaring that defendant is to provide coverage and to entertain plaintiffs personal injury claims and granting plaintiff leave to amend his summons and complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

By order dated March 6, 1998, it was determined that the Delaware issued insurance policy covering the vehicle leased by plaintiff, which did not provide uninsured motorist coverage, would not be deemed to include uninsured motorist coverage pursuant to Insurance Law § 5107 since the vehicle was not principally garaged or used in New York. This determination, which, under the circumstances of this case, is completely incompatible with the relief defendant presently seeks, was unappealed by defendant and we decline defendant’s invitation now, four years hence, when the action has long since been dismissed against the issuer of the Delaware policy, in essence to review its propriety. We note, in any event, that defendant has afforded neither legal nor factual basis for its appellate claim that plaintiff is not a “qualified person” within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5202 (b) entitled to protection from defendant pursuant to Insurance Law § 5302. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Sullivan, Wallach, Rubin and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton Tingling, J.), entered on or about August 16, 2001, granting plaintiffs motion for summary judgment declaring that defendant is to provide coverage and to entertain plaintiffs personal injury claims and granting plaintiff leave to amend his summons and complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

By order dated March 6, 1998, it was determined that the Delaware issued insurance policy covering the vehicle leased by plaintiff, which did not provide uninsured motorist coverage, would not be deemed to include uninsured motorist coverage pursuant to Insurance Law § 5107 since the vehicle was not principally garaged or used in New York. This determination, which, under the circumstances of this case, is completely incompatible with the relief defendant presently seeks, was unappealed by defendant and we decline defendant’s invitation now, four years hence, when the action has long since been dismissed against the issuer of the Delaware policy, in essence to review its propriety. We note, in any event, that defendant has afforded neither legal nor factual basis for its appellate claim that plaintiff is not a “qualified person” within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5202 (b) entitled to protection from defendant pursuant to Insurance Law § 5302. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Sullivan, Wallach, Rubin and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

294 A.D.2d 159, 742 N.Y.S.2d 33, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4809, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hinton-v-motor-vehicle-accident-indemnification-corp-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack