Ortiz v. Pabon

22 Misc. 2d 241, 198 N.Y.S.2d 652, 1960 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3655
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedFebruary 5, 1960
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 22 Misc. 2d 241 (Ortiz v. Pabon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ortiz v. Pabon, 22 Misc. 2d 241, 198 N.Y.S.2d 652, 1960 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3655 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1960).

Opinion

Francis X. Conlon, J.

Motion to direct the Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation to accept a notice of intention to file a claim pursuant to section 608 of article 17-A of the Insurance Law is denied. The said section, paragraph (a), requires the filing of such notice ‘‘ within ninety days of the accrual of such cause or causes of action, as.a condition precedent to the right thereafter to apply for payment ”. Paragraph (c) provides that if an insurer disclaims, such notice shall be filed within 10 days after notice of such disclaimer. The accident herein occurred on April 26,1959; on or about May 13, 1959 plaintiff was notified by the insurer that the defendant Pabon was not covered. On or about May 25, 1959 the Motor Vehicle Bureau notified the plaintiff that said defendant was insured on the date of the accident. However, later, on October 8, 1959 he was informed by that bureau that upon completion of its investigation it was found that the defendant was uninsured at the time of the accident.

The best that can be said for the plaintiff’s position was that his cause of action did not accrue until he received the notice of disclaimer from the insured and that his 90 days to serve his notice of intention to sue began to run from that date. There is no requirement in article 17-A of the Insurance Law that the plaintiff may or must receive notice from the Motor Vehicle Bureau that the car was uninsured. In fact this contention is negatived by subdivision c of section 608 thereof which provides only for the notice to be given by the insurer or insurers. Accordingly, the motion must be denied.

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

Related

Graham v. Perez
167 Misc. 2d 622 (New York Supreme Court, 1996)
Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp. & Soister
33 Misc. 2d 704 (New York Supreme Court, 1962)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
22 Misc. 2d 241, 198 N.Y.S.2d 652, 1960 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3655, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ortiz-v-pabon-nysupct-1960.