Nassau Insurance v. Riley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nassau Insurance v. Riley

73 A.D.2d 961, 424 N.Y.S.2d 263, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9894

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

DecidedJanuary 28, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 73 A.D.2d 961 (Nassau Insurance v. Riley) 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

Nassau Insurance v. Riley, 73 A.D.2d 961, 424 N.Y.S.2d 263, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9894 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to stay arbitration under the terms of the uninsured motorist endorsement of a policy of insurance, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated June 6, 1979, which, upon an agreed statement of facts, (1) granted the cross motion for summary judgment of respondent Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO), (2) dismissed the petition, and (3) directed the petitioner to proceed to arbitration. Judgment affirmed, with one bill of $50 costs and disbursements payable to respondent GEICO. In our view, the text of the statement of financial security contained in respondent GEICO’s notice of cancellation strictly complied with the statutory mandate set forth in subdivision 1 of section 313 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law (cf. Judiciary Law, § 756). As this was the only issue submitted to Special Term for determination, the judgment should be affirmed. Hopkins, J. P., Damiani, Gulotta and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

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

— In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to stay arbitration under the terms of the uninsured motorist endorsement of a policy of insurance, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated June 6, 1979, which, upon an agreed statement of facts, (1) granted the cross motion for summary judgment of respondent Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO), (2) dismissed the petition, and (3) directed the petitioner to proceed to arbitration. Judgment affirmed, with one bill of $50 costs and disbursements payable to respondent GEICO. In our view, the text of the statement of financial security contained in respondent GEICO’s notice of cancellation strictly complied with the statutory mandate set forth in subdivision 1 of section 313 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law (cf. Judiciary Law, § 756). As this was the only issue submitted to Special Term for determination, the judgment should be affirmed. Hopkins, J. P., Damiani, Gulotta and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 A.D.2d 961, 424 N.Y.S.2d 263, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9894, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nassau-insurance-v-riley-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack