At issue is the interrelationship between certain provisions of the Insurance Law. More specifically, the question before us is whether a pedestrian injured by a "hit and run" vehicle, who applies to the Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation (MVAIC) for no-fault benefits, must comply with the requirements imposed by sections 5208 (subd [A], par 2) and 5218 of the Insurance Law by reporting
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Let's get started
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
CANTY v. MVAIC
95 A.D.2d 509 (1983)
Dan Canty, Respondent, v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation, Appellant
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
September 26, 1983
September 26, 1983
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Evans, Orr, Pacelli, Norton & Laffan, P. C. (
Bertram Herman, P. C., for respondent.
LAZER, WEINSTEIN and BOYERS, JJ., concur.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
- No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.
