Summary
In Diaz v. Great Am. Ins. Co. (109 A.D.2d 775 [2d Dept 1985]), the court stated that, if a postal employee's signature was required on certificates of mailing, “the rubber-stamped postmark indorsement was acceptable” (see id. at 776.)
Summary of this case from Eill v. MorckOpinion
March 11, 1985
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Stark, J.).
Appeal from the order dismissed ( see, Matter of Aho, 39 N.Y.2d 241, 248).
Judgment affirmed.
Defendant Great American Insurance Company is awarded one bill of costs.
Notice of cancellation was properly sent to defendant Kil Jeong Song by "regular mail, with a certificate of mailing, properly endorsed by the postal service" (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 313 [a]). The form prepared by the carrier for use as a certificate of mailing complies with postal regulations and does not constitute a defect vitiating the notice of cancellation. The signature of the receiving postal employee and a handwritten piece count is not required on certificates of mailing (Domestic Mail Manual § 931.5). In any event, if the postal employee's signature was required, the rubber-stamped postmark indorsement was acceptable (General Construction Law § 46; see, 30 Opns St Comp, 1974, p 21) and the piece count, mechanically indorsed, is assured to be accurate by the amount of postage affixed to the certificate and the procedures required to be followed by Domestic Mail Manual § 931.35.
In sum, the policy was effectively canceled prior to the date of the accident in issue. Accordingly, Trial Term properly declared that the carrier has no obligation under the policy. Titone, J.P., Thompson, O'Connor and Rubin, JJ., concur.