| Matter of Eveready Ins. Co. v France |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 07410 [66 AD3d 776] |
| October 13, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Eveready Insurance Company,Appellant, v Joseph France et al., Respondents. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company,Proposed Additional Respondent. |
—[*1] Epstein, Harms & McDonald, New York, N.Y. (Michael A. Buffa of counsel), for proposedadditional respondent.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to stay arbitration of an uninsured motoristclaim, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Archer, Ct.Atty. Ref.), dated October 10, 2008, which, after a framed-issue hearing, determined thatNationwide Mutual Insurance Company validly cancelled its insurance policy prior to the subjectaccident and, in effect, denied the petition.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The petitioner Eveready Insurance Company commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLRarticle 75 to stay arbitration of an uninsured motorist claim on the ground that the vehicleinvolved in the subject accident was insured by Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company(hereinafter Nationwide) on the date of the accident. A framed-issue hearing was subsequentlyheld on the issue of whether Nationwide validly cancelled the policy covering the vehicle priorto the accident. Contrary to the petitioner's contention, Nationwide established at the hearing thatit followed an office practice and procedure geared to ensure that a notice of cancellation isproperly addressed and mailed, which gave rise to a presumption of receipt (see Nassau Ins.Co. v Murray, 46 NY2d 828, 829-830 [1978]; Badio v Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 12 AD3d 229, 230 [2004];Matter of Murphy, 248 AD2d 475 [1998]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properlydetermined that Nationwide validly cancelled its insurance policy prior to the subject accidentand, in effect, denied the petition.
The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, J.P., Balkin, Dickerson andLott, JJ., concur.