From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kilpatrick v. Utica Avenue Auto Sales, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 6, 2000
270 A.D.2d 233 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

March 6, 2000.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.), dated September 10, 1998, which denied his motion to compel the Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation to appear on behalf of and defend the defendants in this action, and (2) an order of the same court, dated June 1, 1999, which denied his motion for reargument.

Molod Spitz DeSantis Stark, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Frederick M. Molod, Julie E. Molod, and Marcy Sonneborn of counsel), for appellant.

THOMAS R. SULLIVAN, J.P., WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, NANCY E. SMITH, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the appeal from the order dated June 1, 1999, is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument; and it is further,

ORDERED that the order dated September 10, 1998, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

There is no merit to the plaintiff's contention that the Supreme Court erred in denying his motion to compel the Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation to appear on behalf of and defend the defendants in this action ( see, Muhammad v. Diaz, 198 A.D.2d 32; Bell v. Morris, 169 Misc.2d 1062).

SULLIVAN, J.P., FRIEDMANN, FEUERSTEIN, and SMITH, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Kilpatrick v. Utica Avenue Auto Sales, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 6, 2000
270 A.D.2d 233 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Kilpatrick v. Utica Avenue Auto Sales, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:Spious Kilpatrick, appellant, v. Utica Avenue Auto Sales, Inc., et al.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Mar 6, 2000

Citations

270 A.D.2d 233 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
704 N.Y.S.2d 515

Citing Cases

Naula v. Puente

by deleting the provision thereof which, upon reargument, adhered to so much of the order dated March 21,…

Knight v. M.V.A.I.C

Further, if the endorsement is not expressly included in a policy, it will be implied ( see Matter of Kenyon,…