From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Muhammad v. Diaz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 4, 1993
198 A.D.2d 32 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

November 4, 1993

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.).


MVAIC cannot be compelled, at this juncture, to pay plaintiff's claim against defendant Diaz since, by statute, claims founded on the default of an uninsured defendant are not allowed (Insurance Law § 5214). Nor can MVAIC be compelled, at this juncture, to submit an answer on behalf of Diaz, before there has been a determination that Diaz, in fact, was not insured by Allstate at the time of the accident. It being established that Allstate had previously insured Diaz, the burden should be on plaintiff, at least in the absence of Allstate before the court, to come forward with proof of an effective cancellation by Allstate, since, as between plaintiff and MVAIC, it is plaintiff who pleads and relies on such cancellation (see, Viuker v Allstate Ins. Co., 70 A.D.2d 295).

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.


Summaries of

Muhammad v. Diaz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 4, 1993
198 A.D.2d 32 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

Muhammad v. Diaz

Case Details

Full title:SALEEM MUHAMMAD, Appellant, v. EUNICE DIAZ, Respondent, et al., Defendants

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

Date published: Nov 4, 1993

Citations

198 A.D.2d 32 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
603 N.Y.S.2d 46

Citing Cases

Bell v. Morris

MVAIC could not be compelled at this juncture to submit an answer on behalf of Morris and Fritzgone, since…

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,…