Rawlins v. Santana

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Rawlins v. Santana

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedApril 2, 2019

Docket2019 NYSlipOp 50451(U)

StatusPublished

This text of Rawlins v. Santana (Rawlins v. Santana) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rawlins v. Santana, (N.Y. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

Maria Rawlins,

against

Charles Santana, Respondent, and MVAIC, Respondent-Appellant.

Respondent MVAIC, as limited by its briefs, appeals from that portion of an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Denise M. Dominguez, J.), entered May 1, 2018, which granted petitioner leave to commence an action against MVAIC.

Per Curiam.

Order (Denise M. Dominguez, J.), entered May 1, 2018, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with $10 costs.

Civil Court properly granted petitioner's renewed application for leave to commence an action against MVAIC. Petitioner sufficiently pleaded all of the requirements of Insurance Law § 5218 for commencing an action against MVAIC (see Matter of Osorio v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 112 AD3d 831, 833 [2013]). In support of the application, petitioner provided, inter alia, a copy of the police accident report, which indicated that she was struck by a vehicle while crossing the street, and that the vehicle left the scene, but was identified in the report as a green Ford van with a specified license number. Petitioner also demonstrated that she commenced an action against the owner of said van, one Charles Santana, and that action was dismissed for lack of proof.

Having now exhausted her remedies against Santana, petitioner's renewed application for leave to sue MVAIC was properly considered (see Matter of Acosta-Collado v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 103 AD3d 714, 716 [2013]; Hauswirth v American Home Assur. Co., 244 AD2d 528, 529 [1997]). Moreover, since the proof established that "the hit-and-run accident was one in which the identity of the owner and operator of the offending vehicle was unknown or not readily ascertainable through reasonable efforts" (Matter of Troches v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 171 AD2d 873 [1991]), the application was properly granted.

We have considered respondent's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concur I concur I concur

Decision Date: April 02, 2019

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

Maria Rawlins,

against

Charles Santana, Respondent, and MVAIC, Respondent-Appellant.

Respondent MVAIC, as limited by its briefs, appeals from that portion of an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Denise M. Dominguez, J.), entered May 1, 2018, which granted petitioner leave to commence an action against MVAIC.

Per Curiam.

Order (Denise M. Dominguez, J.), entered May 1, 2018, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with $10 costs.

Civil Court properly granted petitioner's renewed application for leave to commence an action against MVAIC. Petitioner sufficiently pleaded all of the requirements of Insurance Law § 5218 for commencing an action against MVAIC (see Matter of Osorio v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 112 AD3d 831, 833 [2013]). In support of the application, petitioner provided, inter alia, a copy of the police accident report, which indicated that she was struck by a vehicle while crossing the street, and that the vehicle left the scene, but was identified in the report as a green Ford van with a specified license number. Petitioner also demonstrated that she commenced an action against the owner of said van, one Charles Santana, and that action was dismissed for lack of proof.

Having now exhausted her remedies against Santana, petitioner's renewed application for leave to sue MVAIC was properly considered (see Matter of Acosta-Collado v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 103 AD3d 714, 716 [2013]; Hauswirth v American Home Assur. Co., 244 AD2d 528, 529 [1997]). Moreover, since the proof established that "the hit-and-run accident was one in which the identity of the owner and operator of the offending vehicle was unknown or not readily ascertainable through reasonable efforts" (Matter of Troches v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 171 AD2d 873 [1991]), the application was properly granted.

We have considered respondent's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concur I concur I concur

Decision Date: April 02, 2019

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Rawlins v. Santana, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rawlins-v-santana-nyappterm-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack