In re the Arbitration between Allcity Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Arbitration between Allcity Insurance

212 A.D.2d 405, 622 N.Y.S.2d 43

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

DecidedFebruary 9, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 212 A.D.2d 405 (In re the Arbitration between Allcity Insurance) 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

In re the Arbitration between Allcity Insurance, 212 A.D.2d 405, 622 N.Y.S.2d 43 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen Freedman, J.), entered on or about March 9, 1994, which, after a hearing, denied petitioner insurer’s application to stay an uninsured motorist arbitration demanded by respondent insureds, upon a finding that respondent insurer had effectively cancelled its policy on the offending vehicle, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Petitioner’s argument that respondent insurer’s notice of cancellation was ineffective under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 313 (2) (a) for failure to notify the Department of Motor Vehicles within 30 days of the effective date of cancellation is unpreserved as a matter of law for this Court’s review, no such argument having been raised before the IAS Court (see, Douglas Elliman-Gibbons & Ives v Kellerman, 172 AD2d 307, lv denied 78 NY2d 856), and, in any event, is without merit. Since the notice of cancellation was filed with the Department of Motor Vehicles prior to the date of the accident, it was effective as against petitioner and its insureds even though not filed within 30 days after the cancellation (see, Meutsch v Travelers Ins. Co., 206 AD2d 953, 954-955).

We have considered petitioner’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Rubin, Ross and Tom, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen Freedman, J.), entered on or about March 9, 1994, which, after a hearing, denied petitioner insurer’s application to stay an uninsured motorist arbitration demanded by respondent insureds, upon a finding that respondent insurer had effectively cancelled its policy on the offending vehicle, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Petitioner’s argument that respondent insurer’s notice of cancellation was ineffective under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 313 (2) (a) for failure to notify the Department of Motor Vehicles within 30 days of the effective date of cancellation is unpreserved as a matter of law for this Court’s review, no such argument having been raised before the IAS Court (see, Douglas Elliman-Gibbons & Ives v Kellerman, 172 AD2d 307, lv denied 78 NY2d 856), and, in any event, is without merit. Since the notice of cancellation was filed with the Department of Motor Vehicles prior to the date of the accident, it was effective as against petitioner and its insureds even though not filed within 30 days after the cancellation (see, Meutsch v Travelers Ins. Co., 206 AD2d 953, 954-955).

We have considered petitioner’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Rubin, Ross and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

212 A.D.2d 405, 622 N.Y.S.2d 43, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-allcity-insurance-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack