Progressive Preferred Insurance v. Willlams

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Progressive Preferred Insurance v. Willlams

78 A.D.3d 578, 910 N.Y.S.2d 652

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

DecidedNovember 23, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 78 A.D.3d 578 (Progressive Preferred Insurance v. Willlams) 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

Progressive Preferred Insurance v. Willlams, 78 A.D.3d 578, 910 N.Y.S.2d 652 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lucy Billings, J.), entered on or about December 2, 2009, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied without a hearing the petition to permanently stay an uninsured motorist arbitration, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner’s own submissions showed that the policy previously issued to the driver of the offending vehicle by Esurance had in fact been terminated before the accident, and that a hearing was not required to explore the possibility that such coverage was not properly canceled (see Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Holloway, 272 AD2d 539 [2000]). The notice of termination included “a statement that proof of financial security is required to be maintained continuously throughout the registration period” (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 313 [1] [a]). Petitioner was not entitled to a hearing based on its unsupported claim that the legend in the notice was printed in less than 12-point type, in violation of the statute (see Matter of Eagle Ins. Co. v Peguero, 299 AD2d 294 [2002]). Concur — Andrias, J.P., Catterson, Moskowitz, Manzanet-Daniels and Román, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lucy Billings, J.), entered on or about December 2, 2009, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied without a hearing the petition to permanently stay an uninsured motorist arbitration, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner’s own submissions showed that the policy previously issued to the driver of the offending vehicle by Esurance had in fact been terminated before the accident, and that a hearing was not required to explore the possibility that such coverage was not properly canceled (see Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Holloway, 272 AD2d 539 [2000]). The notice of termination included “a statement that proof of financial security is required to be maintained continuously throughout the registration period” (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 313 [1] [a]). Petitioner was not entitled to a hearing based on its unsupported claim that the legend in the notice was printed in less than 12-point type, in violation of the statute (see Matter of Eagle Ins. Co. v Peguero, 299 AD2d 294 [2002]). Concur — Andrias, J.P., Catterson, Moskowitz, Manzanet-Daniels and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 A.D.3d 578, 910 N.Y.S.2d 652, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/progressive-preferred-insurance-v-willlams-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack