RAWLINS v. MVAIC (2019)

Order (Denise M. Dominguez, J.), entered May 1, 2018, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with $ 10 costs.

Civil Court properly granted petitioner's renewed application for leave to commence an action against MVAIC. Petitioner sufficiently pleaded all of the requirements of Insurance Law § 5218 for commencing an action against MVAIC (see Matter of Osorio v. Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 112 AD3d 831, 833 [2013] ). In support of the application, petitioner provided, inter alia, a copy of the police accident report, which indicated that she was struck by a vehicle while crossing the street, and that the vehicle left the scene, but was identified in the report as a green Ford van with a specified license number. Petitioner also demonstrated that she commenced an action against the owner of said van, one Charles Santana, and that action was dismissed for lack of proof.

Having now exhausted her remedies against Santana, petitioner's renewed application for leave to sue MVAIC was properly considered (see Matter of Acosta-Collado v. Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 103 AD3d 714, 716 [2013]; Hauswirth v. American Home Assur. Co., 244 AD2d 528, 529 [1997] ). Moreover, since the proof established that “the hit-and-run accident was one in which the identity of the owner and operator of the offending vehicle was unknown or not readily ascertainable through reasonable efforts” (Matter of Troches v. Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 171 AD2d 873 [1991] ), the application was properly granted.

We have considered respondent's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Per Curiam.