Von Maknassy v. Mutual Service Casualty Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Von Maknassy v. Mutual Service Casualty Insurance

20 A.D.3d 375, 799 N.Y.S.2d 482

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJuly 28, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 20 A.D.3d 375 (Von Maknassy v. Mutual Service Casualty Insurance) 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

Von Maknassy v. Mutual Service Casualty Insurance, 20 A.D.3d 375, 799 N.Y.S.2d 482 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered May 12, 2004, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied and the complaint reinstated.

In this action seeking recovery of no-fault benefits, Supreme Court erred in granting defendant insurer’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The record does not establish, as a matter of law, that, under the circumstances, plaintiff failed to submit proof of his claims for medical expenses and lost wages within the applicable time limitations. While defendant remains free to raise as a defense at trial its claim that plaintiff is seeking a double recovery, the existing record does not establish such a defense as a matter of law. Finally, plaintiff is not precluded from asserting the claims at bar, based on injuries he allegedly incurred in a 1999 accident, by an assignment of benefits he executed in 1993, more than six years prior to that accident. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Friedman, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered May 12, 2004, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied and the complaint reinstated.

In this action seeking recovery of no-fault benefits, Supreme Court erred in granting defendant insurer’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The record does not establish, as a matter of law, that, under the circumstances, plaintiff failed to submit proof of his claims for medical expenses and lost wages within the applicable time limitations. While defendant remains free to raise as a defense at trial its claim that plaintiff is seeking a double recovery, the existing record does not establish such a defense as a matter of law. Finally, plaintiff is not precluded from asserting the claims at bar, based on injuries he allegedly incurred in a 1999 accident, by an assignment of benefits he executed in 1993, more than six years prior to that accident. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Friedman, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 A.D.3d 375, 799 N.Y.S.2d 482, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/von-maknassy-v-mutual-service-casualty-insurance-nyappdiv-2005.