From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Manente v. East Coast Housing Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Nov 22, 1961
14 A.D.2d 972 (N.Y. App. Div. 1961)

Opinion

November 22, 1961

Present — Bergan, P.J., Gibson, Herlihy, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ.


Appeal from a decision of the Workmen's Compensation Board. The issue is whether the appellant compensation carrier served the employer with a notice of cancellation of its policy so as to terminate coverage. The Workmen's Compensation Board has held that notice of cancellation was not properly served and that coverage continued to include the time of the industrial accident here involved. Upon this record the adequacy of the notice seems a question of fact; and there is substantial evidence to sustain the board's ruling. The statute (Workmen's Compensation Law, § 54, subd. 5) provides that no contract "shall be cancelled" until at least 10 days after notice shall have been served personally on the insured or, alternatively, by registered mail addressed to the assured's "last known place of business". On the declarations of the policy here involved, the "address" of the insured is stated "c/o P.J. Alicino, 51 East 42nd Street, New York City, New York"; but "usual workplaces" is given as Staten Island on certain described land bounded by specific streets. It is shown that "P.J. Alicino" of 51 East 42nd Street, was an agent for the insurance company on lines of insurance coverage other than workmen's compensation. It is also shown that on two occasions after the issuance of the policy, the carrier wrote to the assured at a Staten Island address concerning different claims of accident. It is also shown that Mr. Alicino had this address and wrote to the assured there concerning an additional premium. The statute allows notice of cancellation to be "served" by mail but it requires more than merely routine mailing. It is not the address on the policy declarations that is necessarily to be used; it is the "last known" address. Where the address in the declarations is that of an agent for the insurance company, with the workplace elsewhere; and where the files of the company itself on reasonable inspection would disclose that the address of the insured was, at least some time after the policy was issued, not at the address of the insurance agent but elsewhere, it seems not unreasonable that care be taken, in so important a matter as cancellation of compensation policy coverage, that the "last known address" be made quite certain if service is to be by mail. Decision unanimously affirmed, with costs to the Workmen's Compensation Board.


Summaries of

Matter of Manente v. East Coast Housing Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Nov 22, 1961
14 A.D.2d 972 (N.Y. App. Div. 1961)
Case details for

Matter of Manente v. East Coast Housing Corp.

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Claim of NICOLA MANENTE, Respondent, v. EAST COAST…

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

Date published: Nov 22, 1961

Citations

14 A.D.2d 972 (N.Y. App. Div. 1961)

Citing Cases

Matter of Whiteside v. Golinello

"The statute allows notice of cancellation to be `served' by mail but it requires more than routine mailing.…

Manente v. Sorecon Corporation

Judgment reversed on the facts and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. In our opinion, the…