In the Matter of Waleed Gettes v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp..
| Citation | 85 A.D.3d 1029,925 N.Y.S.2d 876,2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 05497 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Waleed GETTES, respondent,v.MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT INDEMNIFICATION CORPORATION, appellant. |
| Decision Date | 21 June 2011 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
85 A.D.3d 1029
925 N.Y.S.2d 876
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 05497
In the Matter of Waleed GETTES, respondent,
v.
MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT INDEMNIFICATION CORPORATION, appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
June 21, 2011.
Cruz & Gangi and Associates (Kornfeld, Rew, Newman & Simeone, Suffern, N.Y. [William S. Badura], of counsel), for appellant.
[85 A.D.3d 1029] In a proceeding pursuant to Insurance Law article 52, the Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (F.Rivera, J.), dated August 7, 2009, as granted that branch of the petition which was, in effect, for leave to commence an action against it.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The petitioner's evidentiary submissions established that he is a “qualified person” entitled to benefits from the Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation (hereinafter the appellant) as defined by Insurance Law § 5202(b). The petitioner's submissions were also sufficient to demonstrate that nonparty State Farm Insurance Company, which allegedly insured the offending vehicle, denied coverage “based upon the lack of a policy of insurance in effect at the time the cause of action arose” (Insurance Law § 5208[a][3][A] [ii]; see Matter of Wilcox v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 187 A.D.2d 909, 912, 590 N.Y.S.2d 314; cf. [85 A.D.3d 1030] Pajak v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 155 A.D.2d 912, 913, 547 N.Y.S.2d 735), and that the petitioner timely filed a notice of intention to make a claim against the appellant. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to “[t]he protection...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Krisztina K. v. John S.
...96 A.D.3d at 757, 945 N.Y.S.2d 575;Matter of Sepulveda v. Perez, 90 A.D.3d at 1058, 936 N.Y.S.2d 226;Matter of DosReis v. Rousseau, 85 A.D.3d at 1029, 925 N.Y.S.2d 849;Matter of Richardson v. Richardson, 80 A.D.3d at 44, 910 N.Y.S.2d 149;Matter of Luke v. Luke, 72 A.D.3d at 689, 897 N.Y.S.2......
-
People v. Powell
...Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.June 21, 2011. Martin E. Gotkin, Palisades, N.Y., for appellant. [925 N.Y.S.2d 876] Thomas P. Zugibe, District Attorney, New City, N.Y. (Itamar J. Yeger of counsel), for respondent. [85 A.D.3d 1061] Appeal by the defendant from a judgme......
- In the Matter of Cheryl Dosreis v. Rousseau