Willingham v. Huston

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Willingham v. Huston

36 A.D.3d 469, 825 N.Y.S.2d 915

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

DecidedJanuary 11, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 36 A.D.3d 469 (Willingham v. Huston) 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

Willingham v. Huston, 36 A.D.3d 469, 825 N.Y.S.2d 915 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Yvonne Gonzalez, J.), entered July 8, 2005, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied petitioner leave to sue respondent MVAIC and Farm Family Insurance Company, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Eetitioner failed to provide certain required information to [470]*470MVAIC when she filled out her notice of intention to make a claim. Even after being advised of the omissions, she failed to supplement the form with the necessary information. Among the missing information was establishment that she was a “qualified person” (Insurance Law § 5211 [a] [1]), which would have required proof of her New York residency (Insurance Law § 5202 [b] [i]) in light of her South Carolina address. Nor did she demonstrate, as evident from the record, that she undertook reasonable efforts to establish the uninsured status of the vehicle’s owner or operator (Insurance Law § 5208 [a] [1] [B]; [3] [A] [ii]). Concur — Tom, J.E, Mazzarelli, Andrias, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Yvonne Gonzalez, J.), entered July 8, 2005, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied petitioner leave to sue respondent MVAIC and Farm Family Insurance Company, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Eetitioner failed to provide certain required information to [470]*470MVAIC when she filled out her notice of intention to make a claim. Even after being advised of the omissions, she failed to supplement the form with the necessary information. Among the missing information was establishment that she was a “qualified person” (Insurance Law § 5211 [a] [1]), which would have required proof of her New York residency (Insurance Law § 5202 [b] [i]) in light of her South Carolina address. Nor did she demonstrate, as evident from the record, that she undertook reasonable efforts to establish the uninsured status of the vehicle’s owner or operator (Insurance Law § 5208 [a] [1] [B]; [3] [A] [ii]). Concur — Tom, J.E, Mazzarelli, Andrias, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

36 A.D.3d 469, 825 N.Y.S.2d 915, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/willingham-v-huston-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack