Eveready Insurance v. George

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Eveready Insurance v. George

208 A.D.2d 835, 618 N.Y.S.2d 382, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9991

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 24, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 208 A.D.2d 835 (Eveready Insurance v. George) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Eveready Insurance v. George, 208 A.D.2d 835, 618 N.Y.S.2d 382, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9991 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR 7503 to stay arbitration of an uninsured motorist claim, the petitioner appeals from a [836]*836judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.), dated August 23, 1993, which dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

We reject the petitioner’s contention that the magnetic tape submission of National Grange Mutual Insurance Company to the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles did not constitute a "filing” of a notice of cancellation for purposes of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 313 (3). It is undisputed that its submission was returned by the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles with the designation "no hit.” Under the regulations promulgated by the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles (15 NYCRR 34.1 et seq.), such a designation does not mean that the submission did not constitute a "filing” (see, 15 NYCRR 34.2 [a]-[f]; 34.7 [j] [2], [3]; 34.7 [o]). Accordingly, insurance on the subject vehicle was properly canceled and arbitration should proceed between the petitioner and the respondent Debra D. George. Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Ritter, Pizzuto and Florio, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR 7503 to stay arbitration of an uninsured motorist claim, the petitioner appeals from a [836]*836judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.), dated August 23, 1993, which dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

We reject the petitioner’s contention that the magnetic tape submission of National Grange Mutual Insurance Company to the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles did not constitute a "filing” of a notice of cancellation for purposes of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 313 (3). It is undisputed that its submission was returned by the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles with the designation "no hit.” Under the regulations promulgated by the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles (15 NYCRR 34.1 et seq.), such a designation does not mean that the submission did not constitute a "filing” (see, 15 NYCRR 34.2 [a]-[f]; 34.7 [j] [2], [3]; 34.7 [o]). Accordingly, insurance on the subject vehicle was properly canceled and arbitration should proceed between the petitioner and the respondent Debra D. George. Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Ritter, Pizzuto and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 A.D.2d 835, 618 N.Y.S.2d 382, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9991, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eveready-insurance-v-george-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack