General Accident Insurance v. Gardini

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

General Accident Insurance v. Gardini

225 A.D.2d 622, 639 N.Y.2d 139, 639 N.Y.S.2d 139, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2223

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

DecidedMarch 11, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 225 A.D.2d 622 (General Accident Insurance v. Gardini) 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

General Accident Insurance v. Gardini, 225 A.D.2d 622, 639 N.Y.2d 139, 639 N.Y.S.2d 139, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2223 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action (see, Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248). The issues raised on the appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (see, CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

We reject the petitioner’s contention that the appellant’s submission of a magnetic tape to the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles was not a filing of a notice of cancellation of the respondent Jónica Milbrad’s automobile insurance pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 313. It is undisputed that the appellant’s submission was returned by the Depart[623]*623ment of Motor Vehicles with the designation "unresolved no-hit.” Under the regulations promulgated by the Commissioner of the Department Motor Vehicles (15 NYCRR 34.1 et seq.), such a designation is a filing of a notice of cancellation (see, 15 NYCRR 34.2 [a]-[f]; 34.7 Q] [2], [3]; 34.7 [o]). Accordingly, Milo-rad’s automobile insurance was properly cancelled (see, Matter of Eveready Ins. Co. v George, 208 AD2d 835, 836). Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Thompson and Hart, JJ., concur.

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

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action (see, Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248). The issues raised on the appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (see, CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

We reject the petitioner’s contention that the appellant’s submission of a magnetic tape to the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles was not a filing of a notice of cancellation of the respondent Jónica Milbrad’s automobile insurance pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 313. It is undisputed that the appellant’s submission was returned by the Depart[623]*623ment of Motor Vehicles with the designation "unresolved no-hit.” Under the regulations promulgated by the Commissioner of the Department Motor Vehicles (15 NYCRR 34.1 et seq.), such a designation is a filing of a notice of cancellation (see, 15 NYCRR 34.2 [a]-[f]; 34.7 Q] [2], [3]; 34.7 [o]). Accordingly, Milo-rad’s automobile insurance was properly cancelled (see, Matter of Eveready Ins. Co. v George, 208 AD2d 835, 836). Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Thompson and Hart, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 A.D.2d 622, 639 N.Y.2d 139, 639 N.Y.S.2d 139, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2223, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/general-accident-insurance-v-gardini-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack