Sweeney v. Preferred Mutual Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sweeney v. Preferred Mutual Insurance

43 A.D.3d 1395, 841 N.Y.S.2d 915

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

DecidedSeptember 28, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 43 A.D.3d 1395 (Sweeney v. Preferred Mutual Insurance) 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

Sweeney v. Preferred Mutual Insurance, 43 A.D.3d 1395, 841 N.Y.S.2d 915 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Steuben County (Peter C. Bradstreet, A.J.), entered July 6, 2006. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted in part plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: We affirm for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court. We add only that, with respect to a notice of cancellation of an insurance policy, “[Literal compliance with the provisions of the . . . [applicable] statutes is the rule and any ambiguity in language is strictly construed against the insurer” (Government Empls. Ins. Co. v Mizell, 36 AD2d 452, 454 [1971]). Here, defendant failed to refer to Insurance Law § 3426 (c) (1) (A) in its notice cancelling plaintiffs insurance policy for nonpayment of premiums despite the express requirement in Insurance Law § 3426 (h) that “[e]very notice of cancellation issued pursuant to [section 3426] shall. . . contain where applicable a reference to the pertinent paragraph or subparagraph of subsection (c) of this section.” Present—Martoche, J.P., Smith, Peradotto, Green and Pine, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Steuben County (Peter C. Bradstreet, A.J.), entered July 6, 2006. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted in part plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: We affirm for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court. We add only that, with respect to a notice of cancellation of an insurance policy, “[Literal compliance with the provisions of the . . . [applicable] statutes is the rule and any ambiguity in language is strictly construed against the insurer” (Government Empls. Ins. Co. v Mizell, 36 AD2d 452, 454 [1971]). Here, defendant failed to refer to Insurance Law § 3426 (c) (1) (A) in its notice cancelling plaintiffs insurance policy for nonpayment of premiums despite the express requirement in Insurance Law § 3426 (h) that “[e]very notice of cancellation issued pursuant to [section 3426] shall. . . contain where applicable a reference to the pertinent paragraph or subparagraph of subsection (c) of this section.” Present—Martoche, J.P., Smith, Peradotto, Green and Pine, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 A.D.3d 1395, 841 N.Y.S.2d 915, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sweeney-v-preferred-mutual-insurance-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack