Ruiz v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp.

19 A.D.2d 832, 244 N.Y.S.2d 594, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3140
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 14, 1963
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 19 A.D.2d 832 (Ruiz 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
Ruiz v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp., 19 A.D.2d 832, 244 N.Y.S.2d 594, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3140 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to statute (Insurance Law, § 618), by petitioners, as the administratrices of a decedent’s estate, for the court’s permission to institute an action against the Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification 'Corporation, to recover damages for the decedent’s wrongful death and for conscious pain and suffering, the corporation appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered October 24, 1962 after a hearing, which, on reargument, granted the application. Order reversed on the law and the facts, without costs, and application denied, without costs. Findings of fact which may be inconsistent herewith are reversed and new findings are made as indicated herein. The record discloses substantial evidence of identification of the second successive vehicle operated by a hit-and-run driver, which was caused to run over petitioners’ intestate. Under the circumstances, an action against the registered owner and the actual owner and apparent operator of the vehicle in the vicinity should he commenced and vigorously prosecuted. Only in the event of such prosecution, if unsuccessful for lack of identity, should leave to sue the appellant corporation (MVAXC) be considered, provided application for such relief be made within the time prescribed by statute (Insurance Law, § 618). (C£. Matter of Buiz v. MVA1C, [833]*83319 A D 2d 833.) Ughetta, Acting P. J., Eleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Collado v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp.
103 A.D.3d 714 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Vil v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp.
304 A.D.2d 588 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
In re Daniel
181 Misc. 2d 941 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 1999)
Byrd v. Johnson
60 A.D.2d 900 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1978)
Person v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp.
54 A.D.2d 580 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)
Frankl v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp.
53 A.D.2d 614 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)
Neubert v. Maryland Automobile Insurance Fund
337 A.2d 59 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1975)
Brown v. Unsatisfied Claim & Judgment Fund Board
311 A.2d 773 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1973)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
19 A.D.2d 832, 244 N.Y.S.2d 594, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3140, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ruiz-v-motor-vehicle-accident-indemnification-corp-nyappdiv-1963.