Weinstein v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Weinstein v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp.

30 A.D.2d 651, 290 N.Y.S.2d 1012, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3774

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

DecidedJune 11, 1968

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 30 A.D.2d 651 (Weinstein 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

Weinstein v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp., 30 A.D.2d 651, 290 N.Y.S.2d 1012, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3774 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered December 12, 1967, granting leave to respondent to sue appellant Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation, Unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, with $30 costs and disbursements to abide the event, and the matter remanded to Special Term for a hearing. Upon the affidavits presented on the application the court is in no position to evaluate the situation and satisfactorily determine whether in compliance with the statutory mandate a proper report of the “ hit-and-run ” accident had in fact been made to the police or to a peace officer. (Insurance Law, § 608, subd. [b]; § 618; Matter of Malitz v. MVAIC, 17 A D 2d 108.) Concur— Botein, P. J.; Stevens, Eager, Steuer and Tilzer, JJ.

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

Order, entered December 12, 1967, granting leave to respondent to sue appellant Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation, Unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, with $30 costs and disbursements to abide the event, and the matter remanded to Special Term for a hearing. Upon the affidavits presented on the application the court is in no position to evaluate the situation and satisfactorily determine whether in compliance with the statutory mandate a proper report of the “ hit-and-run ” accident had in fact been made to the police or to a peace officer. (Insurance Law, § 608, subd. [b]; § 618; Matter of Malitz v. MVAIC, 17 A D 2d 108.) Concur— Botein, P. J.; Stevens, Eager, Steuer and Tilzer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.2d 651, 290 N.Y.S.2d 1012, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3774, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weinstein-v-motor-vehicle-accident-indemnification-corp-nyappdiv-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack