Kern Nam Lee v. Rodriguez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kern Nam Lee v. Rodriguez

54 A.D.2d 942, 388 N.Y.S.2d 345, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14821

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 54 A.D.2d 942 (Kern Nam Lee v. Rodriguez) 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

Kern Nam Lee v. Rodriguez, 54 A.D.2d 942, 388 N.Y.S.2d 345, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14821 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated May 14, 1976, which granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel it to accept a notice of claim as having been timely filed. Order reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and motion denied. No fact findings were presented for review. On the date the plaintiffs filed their notice of claim, it was untimely under the provisions of section 608 of the Insurance Law as it then read (see Matter of Walker v Motor Vehicle Acc. Ind. Corp., 41 AD2d 527, 528, affd 33 NY2d 781). The amendment to the statute, which became effective several months after plaintiffs’ filing and which affords relief to a claimant after his receipt of a correction of error by the Department of Motor Vehicles (L 1974, ch 488, § 1), cannot have retrospective application (see Matter of Sacks v Motor Vehicle Acc. Ind. Corp., 23 AD2d 783). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Margett, Damiani, Shapiro and Titone, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated May 14, 1976, which granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel it to accept a notice of claim as having been timely filed. Order reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and motion denied. No fact findings were presented for review. On the date the plaintiffs filed their notice of claim, it was untimely under the provisions of section 608 of the Insurance Law as it then read (see Matter of Walker v Motor Vehicle Acc. Ind. Corp., 41 AD2d 527, 528, affd 33 NY2d 781). The amendment to the statute, which became effective several months after plaintiffs’ filing and which affords relief to a claimant after his receipt of a correction of error by the Department of Motor Vehicles (L 1974, ch 488, § 1), cannot have retrospective application (see Matter of Sacks v Motor Vehicle Acc. Ind. Corp., 23 AD2d 783). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Margett, Damiani, Shapiro and Titone, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 A.D.2d 942, 388 N.Y.S.2d 345, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14821, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kern-nam-lee-v-rodriguez-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack