Vega v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Vega v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp.

59 A.D.2d 759, 398 N.Y.S.2d 707, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13791

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 24, 1977·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to section 618 of the Insurance Law for permission to bring an action against the respondent to recover damages for personal injuries and wrongful death, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated July 15, 1974, which denied the application. Order reversed, with $50 costs and disbursements, and proceeding remitted to Special Term for further proceedings in accordance herewith. Special Term erroneously relied on hearsay statements contained in a police report as to how the decedent was killed (see Richardson, Evidence [Prince, 10th ed], § 299). Accordingly, a hearing is mandated to determine by competent proof what actually happened. If, after the hearing, however, it is determined that the decedent actually was hitching onto the back of the vehicle and lost his grip, then the application must be denied (see Urena v Motor Vehicle Acc. bid. Corp., 42 AD2d 888). Cohalan, J. P., Titone, Hawkins and Suozzi, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to section 618 of the Insurance Law for permission to bring an action against the respondent to recover damages for personal injuries and wrongful death, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated July 15, 1974, which denied the application. Order reversed, with $50 costs and disbursements, and proceeding remitted to Special Term for further proceedings in accordance herewith. Special Term erroneously relied on hearsay statements contained in a police report as to how the decedent was killed (see Richardson, Evidence [Prince, 10th ed], § 299). Accordingly, a hearing is mandated to determine by competent proof what actually happened. If, after the hearing, however, it is determined that the decedent actually was hitching onto the back of the vehicle and lost his grip, then the application must be denied (see Urena v Motor Vehicle Acc. bid. Corp., 42 AD2d 888). Cohalan, J. P., Titone, Hawkins and Suozzi, JJ., concur.

Vega v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp., 59 A.D.2d 759, 398 N.Y.S.2d 707, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13791 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

59 A.D.2d 759 (Vega v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related