Sass v. Ocasio

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sass v. Ocasio

59 A.D.2d 859, 399 N.Y.S.2d 122, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14017

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

DecidedNovember 10, 1977

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 59 A.D.2d 859 (Sass v. Ocasio) 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

Sass v. Ocasio, 59 A.D.2d 859, 399 N.Y.S.2d 122, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14017 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered January 14, 1977, declaring that a policy issued by defendant-appellant Aetna to defendant Calderon had not been effectively canceled, unanimously reversed, on the law, and judgment granted in favor of defendant-appellant Aetna declaring to the opposite effect, without costs and without disbursements. The statutory notice requirements (Banking Law, § 576; Vehicle and Traffic Law, § 313), having been adopted for the protection of an assured when a carrier cancels or fails to renew coverage, have no application to the case before us. This cancellation was initiated by defendant Calderon, owner of the covered car, and the proof showed repayment to her of the unearned premium. These two parties to the contract effectively canceled it by their own agreement, of which no one else was entitled to notice. The parties may therefore proceed on the basis that Calderon owned an uninsured car at the time of the accident. The motion to accept the letter attached to the complaint is granted. Settle order on notice providing for declaratory relief. Concur—Lupiano, J. P., Birns, Lane and Markewich, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered January 14, 1977, declaring that a policy issued by defendant-appellant Aetna to defendant Calderon had not been effectively canceled, unanimously reversed, on the law, and judgment granted in favor of defendant-appellant Aetna declaring to the opposite effect, without costs and without disbursements. The statutory notice requirements (Banking Law, § 576; Vehicle and Traffic Law, § 313), having been adopted for the protection of an assured when a carrier cancels or fails to renew coverage, have no application to the case before us. This cancellation was initiated by defendant Calderon, owner of the covered car, and the proof showed repayment to her of the unearned premium. These two parties to the contract effectively canceled it by their own agreement, of which no one else was entitled to notice. The parties may therefore proceed on the basis that Calderon owned an uninsured car at the time of the accident. The motion to accept the letter attached to the complaint is granted. Settle order on notice providing for declaratory relief. Concur—Lupiano, J. P., Birns, Lane and Markewich, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 A.D.2d 859, 399 N.Y.S.2d 122, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14017, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sass-v-ocasio-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack