In re the Arbitration between Szabadi & Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Arbitration between Szabadi & Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp.

26 A.D.2d 801, 274 N.Y.S.2d 341, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3412

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

DecidedOctober 11, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 26 A.D.2d 801 (In re the Arbitration between Szabadi & 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

In re the Arbitration between Szabadi & Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp., 26 A.D.2d 801, 274 N.Y.S.2d 341, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3412 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order entered April 22, 1965, herein appealed from, unanimously reversed, on the law, with $30 costs and disbursements to abide the event, and the motion for a stay granted pending a preliminary hearing. In this case the notice of intention to make claim identifies the car involved in the accident as “ uninsured ” and/or “stolen”. On the facts stated in the petition, which are not disputed by the claimants, there is a substantial question raised whether the car was [802]*802in fact “ uninsured ” or “ stolen ” within the meaning of the statute. It appears that the vehicle was insured and that there had been no disclaimer as of the time the notice of intention was filed, and nothing is shown to prove the vehicle was operated without the consent or permission of the owner. A preliminary hearing should be held to determine the issues raised (Matter of Rosenbaum [American Sur. Co. of N. Y.], 11 N Y 2d 310; Matter of MVAIC [Malone], 16 N Y 2d 1027; cf. Matter of Carlos [MVAIC], 24 A D 2d 747). Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, Stevens and Steuer, JJ.

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

— Order entered April 22, 1965, herein appealed from, unanimously reversed, on the law, with $30 costs and disbursements to abide the event, and the motion for a stay granted pending a preliminary hearing. In this case the notice of intention to make claim identifies the car involved in the accident as “ uninsured ” and/or “stolen”. On the facts stated in the petition, which are not disputed by the claimants, there is a substantial question raised whether the car was [802]*802in fact “ uninsured ” or “ stolen ” within the meaning of the statute. It appears that the vehicle was insured and that there had been no disclaimer as of the time the notice of intention was filed, and nothing is shown to prove the vehicle was operated without the consent or permission of the owner. A preliminary hearing should be held to determine the issues raised (Matter of Rosenbaum [American Sur. Co. of N. Y.], 11 N Y 2d 310; Matter of MVAIC [Malone], 16 N Y 2d 1027; cf. Matter of Carlos [MVAIC], 24 A D 2d 747). Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, Stevens and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.2d 801, 274 N.Y.S.2d 341, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3412, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-szabadi-motor-vehicle-accident-nyappdiv-1966.