From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Interboro Mut. Indem. Ins v. Cermak

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 9, 1992
187 A.D.2d 513 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

November 9, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roncallo, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the petitioner's contention, the misrepresentation made by the respondent Janet J. LoGatto, also known as Janet J. LoGatto Cermak, as to her true address does not render the automobile insurance policy void ab initio. The law is well settled that cancellation of an automobile insurance policy may be prospective only, even if the application is deceptive or fraudulent (see, Aetna Cas. Sur. Co. v O'Connor, 8 N.Y.2d 359; Matter of Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v McClellan, 127 A.D.2d 767; Middlesex Ins. Co. v Carrero, 103 A.D.2d 694; Teeter v Allstate Ins. Co., 9 A.D.2d 176, affd 9 N.Y.2d 655; Vehicle and Traffic Law § 313 [a]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition to stay arbitration of the respondents' claim. Thompson, J.P., Harwood, Balletta, Rosenblatt and Eiber, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Interboro Mut. Indem. Ins v. Cermak

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 9, 1992
187 A.D.2d 513 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

Matter of Interboro Mut. Indem. Ins v. Cermak

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of INTERBORO MUTUAL INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Nov 9, 1992

Citations

187 A.D.2d 513 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Citing Cases

Eagle Insurance Co. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.

Accordingly, the arguments raised on this appeal are not properly before this court. In any event, and…

Anderson v. Baker

In support of their motion, the plaintiffs offered no evidence to refute the answering defendant's claims…