Home/New York Court of Appeals/Ward v. Gresham

Ward v. Gresham

452 N.E.2d 1259, 59 N.Y.2d 878, 465 N.Y.S.2d 931, 1983 N.Y. LEXIS 3210
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedJune 14, 1983
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 452 N.E.2d 1259 (Ward v. Gresham) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ward v. Gresham, 452 N.E.2d 1259, 59 N.Y.2d 878, 465 N.Y.S.2d 931, 1983 N.Y. LEXIS 3210 (N.Y. 1983).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

The premium finance agency, having fully complied with subdivision 1 of section 576 of the Banking Law in sending the notice of intent to cancel and the subsequent notice of cancellation, was not required to comply with section 313 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, relating to the provision of an additional time period prior to cancellation by an insurer. The Legislature has indicated that the procedures to be followed in canceling a policy differ for insurers and premium finance agencies, and given the detailed procedures specifically applicable to premium finance agencies, we conclude that it would be inappropriate to require such agencies to comply with all additional procedures imposed upon insurers (see Banking Law, [881]*881§ 576, subd 1, par [e]). Further, we agree with the Appellate Division that the record does not support a finding that the premium finance agency failed to remit excess unearned premiums to the insured. Accordingly, it is unnecessary to determine whether a failure to do so renders the attempted policy cancellation ineffective (see Banking Law, § 576, subd 1, par [f]). Similarly, we do not pass upon the issue reached by the Appellate Division concerning whether failure to file a notice of termination with the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles (see Banking Law, § 576, subd 1, par [g]) invalidates the cancellation inasmuch as appellants have not raised this issue.

Finally, we have reviewed appellants’ contentions concerning defects in the form and content of the premium finance agreement, as well as the claimed unconscionability of the agreement, and conclude that those issues which are properly preserved for our review are without merit.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Meyer and Simons concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [g]), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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

Related

AIU Insurance v. Rodriguez
43 A.D.3d 1042 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Claim of Palminteri v. Lex Fire Protection Corp.
23 A.D.3d 745 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
ELRAC, Inc. v. White
299 A.D.2d 546 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Foster v. Abrams
242 A.D.2d 952 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Foster v. Abrams
167 Misc. 2d 909 (New York Supreme Court, 1996)
Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Preisigke
139 A.D.2d 900 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)
Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance v. Ogunro
119 A.D.2d 560 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Belot
123 Misc. 2d 1076 (New York Supreme Court, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
452 N.E.2d 1259, 59 N.Y.2d 878, 465 N.Y.S.2d 931, 1983 N.Y. LEXIS 3210, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ward-v-gresham-ny-1983.