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

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

DecidedJanuary 31, 1977

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 55 A.D.2d 959 (In re the Arbitration between Wright, & Utica Mutual 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 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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 A.D.2d 959, 391 N.Y.S.2d 445, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10260, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-wright-utica-mutual-insurance-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack