Zelanka v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Zelanka v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp.

32 A.D.2d 847, 302 N.Y.S.2d 506, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3566

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

DecidedJune 30, 1969

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 32 A.D.2d 847 (Zelanka 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

Zelanka v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp., 32 A.D.2d 847, 302 N.Y.S.2d 506, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3566 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding by appellant to stay arbitration of respondents’ claims, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated January 15, 1969, which denied the application and directed the parties to proceed to arbitration. Judgment reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and proceeding remitted to the Special Term for further proceedings not inconsistent with the views expressed herein. In our opinion, the “ Order of Revocation of Non-Resident Motor Vehicle Privileges” (Form SR-11F) submitted by respondents was sufficient, in the absence of proof to the contrary, to establish that the vehicle which allegedly caused the accident out of which this claim arose was uninsured at the time of the accident (Matter of Foster [MVAIC], 55 Misc 2d 784, 786-788; cf. Matter of Smalls [MVAIC], N. Y. L. J. Feb. 15, 1968, p. 16, col. 5; Matter of Wassenaar [MVAIC], N. Y. L. J. Dec. 19, 1967, p. 16. col. 1). However, it was error to deny appellant a jury trial on this issue (Matter of MVAIC [Malone], 16 N Y 2d 1027), during the course of which appellant would be afforded an opportunity to submit its proof, if any, that the automobile involved was, in fact, insured. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Rabin, Munder and Martuseello, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding by appellant to stay arbitration of respondents’ claims, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated January 15, 1969, which denied the application and directed the parties to proceed to arbitration. Judgment reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and proceeding remitted to the Special Term for further proceedings not inconsistent with the views expressed herein. In our opinion, the “ Order of Revocation of Non-Resident Motor Vehicle Privileges” (Form SR-11F) submitted by respondents was sufficient, in the absence of proof to the contrary, to establish that the vehicle which allegedly caused the accident out of which this claim arose was uninsured at the time of the accident (Matter of Foster [MVAIC], 55 Misc 2d 784, 786-788; cf. Matter of Smalls [MVAIC], N. Y. L. J. Feb. 15, 1968, p. 16, col. 5; Matter of Wassenaar [MVAIC], N. Y. L. J. Dec. 19, 1967, p. 16. col. 1). However, it was error to deny appellant a jury trial on this issue (Matter of MVAIC [Malone], 16 N Y 2d 1027), during the course of which appellant would be afforded an opportunity to submit its proof, if any, that the automobile involved was, in fact, insured. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Rabin, Munder and Martuseello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 A.D.2d 847, 302 N.Y.S.2d 506, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3566, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zelanka-v-motor-vehicle-accident-indemnification-corp-nyappdiv-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack