Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: COLONIAL PENN INSURANCE COMPANY, appellant, v. Jorge MARTICH, an Infant, by His Mother and Natural Guardian, Zoraya L. CRUZ, respondent; Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, et al., proposed additional respondents.
In a proceeding to stay arbitration of an uninsured motorist claim, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lockman, J.), dated April 2, 1998, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding, without a hearing on the issue of whether the offending vehicle was insured at the time of the accident.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the petition is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for the joinder of the proposed additional respondents Liberty Mutual Insurance Company and Bryan R. Schretzmayer, and for a hearing on the issue of whether the offending vehicle was insured at the time of a June 4, 1997, accident.
The petitioner contends that the termination of coverage by the proposed additional respondent Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (hereinafter Liberty) effective May 15, 1997, was not effective with respect to the claim made by the respondent Jorge Martich arising out of a June 4, 1997, accident because Liberty failed to file a notice of cancellation with the Commissioner of the Department of Motor Vehicles within 30 days of the purported date of termination of the insurance policy (see, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 313 [2][a]; Matter of Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Vidale, 207 A.D.2d 489, 615 N.Y.S.2d 922; Matter of Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bethel, 207 A.D.2d 449, 615 N.Y.S.2d 462). However, if the insurance policy had been in force for at least six months, Liberty would not have been required to file a notice of termination with the Commissioner, and the policy would have been effectively terminated as of the date of the accident (see, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 313 [2][a]; Matter of Hanover Ins. Co., 207 A.D.2d 663, 616 N.Y.S.2d 354). Thus, the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court for a hearing on this issue.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: April 05, 1999
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)