From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Espinoza v. Motor Veh. Accident Indemnification Corp.

New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
May 9, 2024
227 A.D.3d 463 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)

Opinion

05-09-2024

In the Matter of Armando ESPINOZA, Petitioner-Respondent, v. The MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT INDEMNIFICATION CORPORATION, Respondent-Appellant.

Kornfeld, Rew, Newman & Simeone, Suffern (Scott A. Dow of counsel), for appellant. Lesch & Lesch, P.C., Bronx (Beth S. Gereg of counsel), for respondent.


Kornfeld, Rew, Newman & Simeone, Suffern (Scott A. Dow of counsel), for appellant.

Lesch & Lesch, P.C., Bronx (Beth S. Gereg of counsel), for respondent.

Kern, J.P., Oing, Kennedy, Scarpulla, Pitt-Burke, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Paul L. Alpert, J.), entered April 19, 2023, which granted petitioner’s motion under Insurance Law § 5218 for leave to commence an action against respondent Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation (MVAIC), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner was involved in a hit-and-run accident on April 19, 2022. On June 13, 2022, he sent a letter to MVAIC requesting that his uninsured motorist claim be processed, attaching a police report and a no-fault application. On July 1, 2022, MVAIC sent petitioner a letter, acknowledging its receipt of notice that petitioner may have sustained injuries in the April 19 accident. After emails from MVAIC requesting various documents, petitioner sent MVAIC the requested documents, along with a formal notice of intention to make a claim, on August 26, 2022. However, MVAIC informed petitioner that the notice was untimely because a notice of intention must be submitted within 90 days of the accident — in this case, by July 18, 2022.

Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting petitioner leave to commence an action against MVAIC. Although petitioner sent his notice of intention around five weeks after the expiration of the 90-day period under Insurance Law § 5208(a)(2)(A), the evidence demonstrated that MVAIC had actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim and was not prejudiced by the delay (Insurance Law § 5208[b][2]; see Shabazz v. Sheltering Arms Children’s Serv., 216 A.D.2d 230, 231, 629 N.Y.S.2d 20 [1st Dept. 1995]).


Summaries of

Espinoza v. Motor Veh. Accident Indemnification Corp.

New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
May 9, 2024
227 A.D.3d 463 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)
Case details for

Espinoza v. Motor Veh. Accident Indemnification Corp.

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of Armando ESPINOZA, Petitioner-Respondent, v. The MOTOR…

Court:New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Date published: May 9, 2024

Citations

227 A.D.3d 463 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)
227 A.D.3d 463

Citing Cases

45 Broadway Owner, LLC v. Wealth Mgmt. Assocs.

Section 20.01 refers to situations in which the premises is damaged or untenantable due to "fire or other…