Nassau Insurance v. Murray

New York Court of Appeals

Nassau Insurance v. Murray

386 N.E.2d 1085, 46 N.Y.2d 828, 414 N.Y.S.2d 117, 1978 N.Y. LEXIS 2496

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 27, 1978

StatusPublished

Cited by218 cases

This text of 386 N.E.2d 1085 (Nassau Insurance v. Murray) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Nassau Insurance v. Murray, 386 N.E.2d 1085, 46 N.Y.2d 828, 414 N.Y.S.2d 117, 1978 N.Y. LEXIS 2496 (N.Y. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

In both cases, the orders of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Where, as here, the proof exhibits an office practice and procedure followed by the insurers in the regular course of their business, which shows that the notices of cancellation have been duly addressed and mailed, a presumption arises that those notices have been received by the insureds (News Syndicate Co. v Gatti Paper Stock Corp., 256 NY 211, 214; Gardam & Son v Batterson, 198 NY 175, 178; Richardson, Evidence [Prince — 10th ed], § 80). Denial of receipt by the *830 insureds, standing alone, is insufficient to rebut the presumption. In addition to a claim of no receipt, there must be a showing that routine office practice was not followed or was so careless that it would be unreasonable to assume that the notice was mailed (see Trusts & Guar. Co. v Barnhardt, 270 NY 350, 354-355). We would hasten to add, however, that in order for the presumption to arise, office practice must be geared so as to ensure the likelihood that a notice of cancellation is always properly addressed and mailed.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in memorandum.

In each case: Order affirmed.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

In both cases, the orders of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Where, as here, the proof exhibits an office practice and procedure followed by the insurers in the regular course of their business, which shows that the notices of cancellation have been duly addressed and mailed, a presumption arises that those notices have been received by the insureds (News Syndicate Co. v Gatti Paper Stock Corp., 256 NY 211, 214; Gardam & Son v Batterson, 198 NY 175, 178; Richardson, Evidence [Prince — 10th ed], § 80). Denial of receipt by the *830 insureds, standing alone, is insufficient to rebut the presumption. In addition to a claim of no receipt, there must be a showing that routine office practice was not followed or was so careless that it would be unreasonable to assume that the notice was mailed (see Trusts & Guar. Co. v Barnhardt, 270 NY 350, 354-355). We would hasten to add, however, that in order for the presumption to arise, office practice must be geared so as to ensure the likelihood that a notice of cancellation is always properly addressed and mailed.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in memorandum.

In each case: Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

386 N.E.2d 1085, 46 N.Y.2d 828, 414 N.Y.S.2d 117, 1978 N.Y. LEXIS 2496, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nassau-insurance-v-murray-ny-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack