Willingham v. Huston

36 A.D.3d 469, 825 N.Y.S.2d 915
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 11, 2007·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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] MVAIC 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

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

36 A.D.3d 469 (Willingham v. Huston) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Yi Song He v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp.
128 A.D.3d 525 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)