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: PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, appellant, v. Cynthia JACKSON, et al., respondents.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75, inter alia, to permanently stay arbitration of an uninsured motorist claim, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Weber, J.), dated April 20, 2007, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
On April 22, 2005, a car owned by the respondent Cynthia Jackson and insured by the petitioner, Progressive Casualty Insurance Company (hereinafter Progressive), was involved in an accident with a car owned by the respondent Leonard Dinardo and allegedly insured by the respondent State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (hereinafter State Farm). However, State Farm had cancelled Dinardo's policy before the accident occurred. Contrary to Progressive's contention, the State Farm notice of cancellation was effective since it informed the insured of a means “via which the cancellation of his policy could be challenged” (Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 104 A.D.2d 495, 496, 479 N.Y.S.2d 83; see Silverstein v. Minkin, 49 N.Y.2d 260, 425 N.Y.S.2d 88, 401 N.E.2d 210; Matter of Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Rothman, 116 A.D.2d 652, 497 N.Y.S.2d 490; Matter of Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. Medina, 114 A.D.2d 959, 495 N.Y.S.2d 224). Accordingly, since there is otherwise no dispute that the State Farm cancellation notice contained all of the information required by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 313 and the New York Automobile Insurance Plan rules regarding cancellation of automobile insurance, the Supreme Court correctly refused to permanently stay arbitration of the uninsured motorist claim.
Under the circumstances of this case, it was also a provident exercise of the court's discretion to, in effect, deny that branch of the petition which sought the alternate relief of pre-arbitration discovery (see Matter of State-Wide Ins. Co. v. Womble, 25 A.D.3d 713, 811 N.Y.S.2d 707; Matter of New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Gershovich, 1 A.D.3d 364, 766 N.Y.S.2d 596).
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: March 18, 2008
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)