Maresca v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Maresca v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp.

32 A.D.2d 647, 301 N.Y.S.2d 434, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4026

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

DecidedMay 12, 1969

StatusPublished

This text of 32 A.D.2d 647 (Maresca 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

Maresca v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp., 32 A.D.2d 647, 301 N.Y.S.2d 434, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4026 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation [MVAIC] from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated October 16, 1968, which referred to a Special Referee, to hear and determine, petitioner’s motion for leave to renew his previously denied motion for leave to sue said MVAIC for injuries allegedly received by him when struck by a “ hit and run ” driver. Order reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and motion denied. On this record, we believe the motion should have been denied outright; and Special Term’s failure to so determine the motion was an improvident exercise of discretion. Brennan, Acting P. J., Hopkins, Benjamin, Munder and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation [MVAIC] from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated October 16, 1968, which referred to a Special Referee, to hear and determine, petitioner’s motion for leave to renew his previously denied motion for leave to sue said MVAIC for injuries allegedly received by him when struck by a “ hit and run ” driver. Order reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and motion denied. On this record, we believe the motion should have been denied outright; and Special Term’s failure to so determine the motion was an improvident exercise of discretion. Brennan, Acting P. J., Hopkins, Benjamin, Munder and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 A.D.2d 647, 301 N.Y.S.2d 434, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4026, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maresca-v-motor-vehicle-accident-indemnification-corp-nyappdiv-1969.