Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp. v. Marrero

More than five months after receiving a copy of an order to which it had explicitly consented, MVAIC moved to have the order vacated on the ground that it was not served with the petition upon which the order ivas based. It contended that, had it been served, it would “have affected MVAIC’s settlement negotiations or have aborted said negotiations altogether. ’ ’ The information of which it was allegedly deprived consisted of a statement that the appellant had an action pending against the City of New York arising out of the same occurrence which formed the basis for the order in issue.

The…