In re the Arbitration between Wright, & Utica Mutual Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Arbitration between Wright, & Utica Mutual Insurance

55 A.D.2d 959, 391 N.Y.S.2d 445, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10260

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 31, 1977·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

In a proceeding to stay arbitration, the Utica Mutual Insurance Company appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated April 8, 1976, which, after a hearing, inter alia, denied its application to stay arbitration. Order affirmed, with one bill of costs jointly to respondents. The evidence supports the finding that the automobile involved in the accident with the claimants’ automobile was uninsured. When an insurance policy is canceled for nonpayment of a premium, the notice of cancellation need not include a statement informing the insured that the cancellation can be reviewed by a committee established pursuant to the New York Automobile Plan (the "Assigned Risk Plan”). We decline to follow the rationale expressed by the Fourth Department in Government Employees Ins. Co. v Mizell (36 AD2d 452, 454). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Cohalan and Damiani, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding to stay arbitration, the Utica Mutual Insurance Company appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated April 8, 1976, which, after a hearing, inter alia, denied its application to stay arbitration. Order affirmed, with one bill of costs jointly to respondents. The evidence supports the finding that the automobile involved in the accident with the claimants’ automobile was uninsured. When an insurance policy is canceled for nonpayment of a premium, the notice of cancellation need not include a statement informing the insured that the cancellation can be reviewed by a committee established pursuant to the New York Automobile Plan (the "Assigned Risk Plan”). We decline to follow the rationale expressed by the Fourth Department in Government Employees Ins. Co. v Mizell (36 AD2d 452, 454). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Cohalan and Damiani, JJ., concur.

In re the Arbitration between Wright, & Utica Mutual Insurance, 55 A.D.2d 959, 391 N.Y.S.2d 445, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10260 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

55 A.D.2d 959 (In re the Arbitration between Wright, & Utica Mutual Insurance) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related