Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

The Rogak Report: 06 August 2004 ** MVAIC - Statute of Limitations **

Expand Messages
  • Lawrence Rogak
    COURT RESOLVES STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS QUESTION ON LAWSUITS AGAINST MVAIC Salas v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation, NYLJ 08/06/04 (Supreme
    Message 1 of 1 , Aug 6, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      COURT RESOLVES STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS QUESTION ON LAWSUITS AGAINST
      MVAIC

      Salas v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation, NYLJ
      08/06/04 (Supreme Court, Kings County) (RIVERA, j.)

      Plaintiff was a pedestrian on 6/03/00 when she was struck by a hit
      and run vehicle on a Brooklyn street. Police responded to the scene
      and made a report. On 8/23/00, plaintiff mailed a Notice of
      Intention To Make A Claim on MVAIC for her injuries.

      On 5/09/03, plaintiff filed an Order to Show Cause (OSC), a Petition,
      and Request for Judicial Intervention (RJI) with the Kings County
      Clerk requesting permission to sue MVAIC pursuant to Insurance Law
      section 5218. On 5/30/03, with no signed order yet, plaintiff
      submitted an "emergency affirmation," and on the same day, a Supreme
      Court justice signed the OSC, making it returnable 6/19/03.

      On 6/19/03, the Petition was heard in court. MVAIC did not appear,
      and a judge issued an Order giving plaintiff permission to sue MVAIC,
      on default. On 6/20/03, the judge's Order was entered in the County
      Clerk's office. On 7/09/03, plaintiff purchased an index number and
      filed a summons and complaint with the clerk. On 7/28/03, plaintiff
      served MVAIC with the summons. MVAIC then made a Motion to dismiss
      the Complaint as barred by the Statute of Limitations.

      The Court examined the issue of when the statute of limitations
      begins to run in a claim against MVAIC. A personal injury action
      accrues on the day the injury occurs. The statute of limitations in
      negligence actions is three years. As this plaintiff was injured on
      6/03/00, the statute would normally expire on 6/03/03. However,
      during the time in which a court is considering a request made to sue
      MVAIC under Insurance Law 5218, the statute of limitations, unless it
      has already expired, is tolled from the commencement of the action
      until an Order is entered granting relief. The reason for tolling
      the Statute of Limitations for the duration of the Petition is
      because, during the pendency of the Petition, plaintiff has no right
      to sue.

      Although Insurance Law 5218 does not specify the type of action a
      plaintiff must bring to obtain permission to sue MVAIC, prior case
      law has clarified that a special proceeding is necessary, commenced
      via Order to Show Cause. A special proceeding is "commenced" with
      the filing of the Petition.

      In the case at hand, plaintiff commenced the special proceeding by
      filing a Petition on 5/09/03, more than 3 weeks before the Statute of
      Limitations expired. The Statute of Limitations was then tolled from
      5/09/03 until 6/30/03, when the judge's Order granting the Petition
      was filed.

      To calculate how long after the entry of the Order the plaintiff has
      to commence the action against MVAIC, you count the number of days
      between the commencement of the special proceeding requesting
      permission to sue MVAIC and the date that the statute of limitations
      would have expired. The resulting number is the number of days the
      plaintiff has to sue MVAIC after entry of the Order granting
      permission to sue. (Vasquez v. MVAIC, 272 AD2d 275).

      In this case, the period from 5/09/03 (when the special proceeding
      was filed) until 6/09/03 (when the Statute of Limitations would have
      expired) was 25 days. Therefore plaintiff had 25 days after 6/30/03
      (the date the Order was filed) in which to commence a lawsuit against
      MVAIC. Twenty-five days after 6/30/03 would be 7/25/03. Plaintiff
      actually commenced her lawsuit against MVAIC on 7/09/03 -- within the
      25 day period.

      And because service on MVAIC was properly made, plaintiff's lawsuit
      is timely and MVAIC's Motion to dismiss on Statute of Limitations
      ground was denied.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.