New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance v. Jordan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance v. Jordan

248 A.D.2d 387, 669 N.Y.S.2d 858, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2033

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

DecidedMarch 2, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 248 A.D.2d 387 (New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance v. Jordan) 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

New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance v. Jordan, 248 A.D.2d 387, 669 N.Y.S.2d 858, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2033 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding to permanently [388]*388stay arbitration of an uninsured motorist claim, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Alfano, J.H.O.), dated December 11, 1996, which, in effect, granted the petition.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the petition is denied, the proceeding is dismissed, and the parties are. directed to proceed to arbitration.

It is undisputed that the notice of cancellation of the policy issued by the appellant Interboro Mutual Indemnity Insurance Company (hereinafter Interboro) contained all of the information required by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 313 (1) (a) and the New York Automobile Insurance Plan (see, Barile v Kavanaugh, 67 NY2d 392; Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. [Ramos], 104 AD2d 495). We find no merit to the Supreme Court’s conclusion that the form of the notice was so confusing as to render it ineffective (see, e.g., Graham v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 144 AD2d 339; Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. [Ramos], supra). Since Interboro validly terminated its policy prior to the time of the accident in question, the purchaser of that policy was uninsured at the time of the accident, and the petitioner was not entitled to a permanent stay of arbitration of the uninsured motorist claim made by its insured.

Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Goldstein and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding to permanently [388]*388stay arbitration of an uninsured motorist claim, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Alfano, J.H.O.), dated December 11, 1996, which, in effect, granted the petition.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the petition is denied, the proceeding is dismissed, and the parties are. directed to proceed to arbitration.

It is undisputed that the notice of cancellation of the policy issued by the appellant Interboro Mutual Indemnity Insurance Company (hereinafter Interboro) contained all of the information required by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 313 (1) (a) and the New York Automobile Insurance Plan (see, Barile v Kavanaugh, 67 NY2d 392; Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. [Ramos], 104 AD2d 495). We find no merit to the Supreme Court’s conclusion that the form of the notice was so confusing as to render it ineffective (see, e.g., Graham v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 144 AD2d 339; Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. [Ramos], supra). Since Interboro validly terminated its policy prior to the time of the accident in question, the purchaser of that policy was uninsured at the time of the accident, and the petitioner was not entitled to a permanent stay of arbitration of the uninsured motorist claim made by its insured.

Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Goldstein and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D.2d 387, 669 N.Y.S.2d 858, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2033, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/new-york-central-mutual-fire-insurance-v-jordan-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack