Rodriguez v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp.

New York Supreme Court

Rodriguez v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp.

19 Misc. 2d 200, 191 N.Y.S.2d 866, 1959 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3028

DecidedSeptember 14, 1959

StatusPublished

This text of 19 Misc. 2d 200 (Rodriguez v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp.) 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

Rodriguez v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp., 19 Misc. 2d 200, 191 N.Y.S.2d 866, 1959 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3028 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

Sidney A. Fine, J.

This is an application, pursuant to section 608 of the Insurance Law, for an order permitting the late filing of a notice of intention to file claim against the Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation, created by section 602 of the same statute. Section 608, where the injured person is an infant, permits the court to allow the late filing of a notice of intention only if “by reason of such disability ” the timely filing of the notice is prevented. This language is substantially identical with that used in subdivision 5 of section 50-e of the General Municipal Law. In Matter of Barrett v. City of New York (1 A D 2d 993) the Appellate Division in this Department held that the failure to file the notice required by section 50-e (supra) was not excused, despite claimant’s infancy, where it was due not to the infancy but to the alleged inability of the claimant’s attorney to ascertain the ownership of the property. It follows that the' excuse given here, viz., that claimant’s attorney was not aware of the statutory requirement, may not prevail. The failure to file was not due to infancy.

Motion denied.

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

Sidney A. Fine, J.

This is an application, pursuant to section 608 of the Insurance Law, for an order permitting the late filing of a notice of intention to file claim against the Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation, created by section 602 of the same statute. Section 608, where the injured person is an infant, permits the court to allow the late filing of a notice of intention only if “by reason of such disability ” the timely filing of the notice is prevented. This language is substantially identical with that used in subdivision 5 of section 50-e of the General Municipal Law. In Matter of Barrett v. City of New York (1 A D 2d 993) the Appellate Division in this Department held that the failure to file the notice required by section 50-e (supra) was not excused, despite claimant’s infancy, where it was due not to the infancy but to the alleged inability of the claimant’s attorney to ascertain the ownership of the property. It follows that the' excuse given here, viz., that claimant’s attorney was not aware of the statutory requirement, may not prevail. The failure to file was not due to infancy.

Motion denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 Misc. 2d 200, 191 N.Y.S.2d 866, 1959 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3028, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodriguez-v-motor-vehicle-accident-indemnification-corp-nysupct-1959.