Published on:

Plaintiff Seriously Injured in Hit and Run Accident, Action Filed Under Terms of Article 52 Insurance Law


The petitioner in this matter is Kenneth Daniel. The respondent is the Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation.


Kenneth Daniel requests that an action against MVAIC, the respondent, be allowed under the terms of article 52 of the Insurance Law.


The petitioner qualifies as insured for coverage during the hit and run car accidentwhich caused him bodily harm. MVAIC argued that he was not insured for two primary reasons. The first is that the accident was not reported within the span of a single day to the authorities, and the second was that he did not make a reasonable effort to identify the motorist who committed the hit and run, both of which are terms which need to be met under Insurance Law.

A case in the Supreme Court of Bronx County must be resolved in the issue of the hit and run before the qualifications of “reasonable efforts” are met, according to MVAIC.

Important Facts

A New York Injury Lawyer said the hit and run took place at 7:20 PM on July 24 of 1998. While riding a bicycle near East Tremont Avenue in the Bronx, the petitioner was hit by a car. Witnesses on the scene could not provide a consistent description of the vehicle. The only information provided conclusively by the victim was that the vehicle which struck him was white.

The court finds that the police were in fact notified within the requisite 24 hour period because they were called to the scene of the accident. This qualifies in all regards as adequate notification.

Relevant Laws

A Westchester Criminal Lawyer said that according to the relevant sections of the Insurance Law, for a valid action against MVAIC to proceed, a previous adverse judgment must occur on the basis that ownership of the vehicle in the hit and run could not be established. However, the victim also has the option to make MVAIC a party defendant rather than concluding the proceeding against the suspect first. This is especially the case when it appears that even after proceedings it seems unlikely that the driver of the vehicle could be positively identified.

There are problems in any case with proceeding with the case against the suspect in the accident and MVAIC separately. These include all the complications associated with running two concurrent cases on a similar issue along with increasing the case loads on the always overworked courts. A Queens Personal Injury Lawyer said there are many measures are in place to streamline the caseload facing the courts when possible. The initial petition in this matter states that further relief the court might choose as appropriate is also requested by the petitioner, which could certainly include consolidation of the cases.


In the end, the court renders several portions to the decision. These include:

1. The petitioner may file an action against MVAIC based on the relevant sections of the Insurance Law.

2. The motion will be passed to the Supreme Court to judge the possibility of consolidation of the cases, as this cannot be accomplished in the present situation at Civil Court.

3. The Civil Court must transfer any parts of the case that might be relevant to making a decision on consolidation to the Supreme Court so that the above decision may be rendered.

4. Approving the submission of any other documentation required by the Supreme Court to further its decision.

5. Ordering that all parties named need to adhere to any rules within the Supreme Court that apply to the matter at hand after the transfer is completed.

Free telephone evaluations on all types of legal issues are available from Stephen Bilkis & Associates. Our lawyers help you understand the types of options you have available to you in the legal system. We work with you to ensure that your interests are protected in any legal action you decide to take. Find us throughout the greater New York area.

Contact Information