Opinion
March 2, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Alfano, J.H.O.).
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the petition is denied, the proceeding is dismissed, and the parties are directed to proceed to arbitration.
It is undisputed that the notice of cancellation of the policy issued by the appellant Interboro Mutual Indemnity Insurance Company (hereinafter Interboro) contained all of the information required by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 313 (1) (a) and the New York Automobile Insurance Plan (see, Barile v. Kavanaugh, 67 N.Y.2d 392; Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. [Ramos], 104 A.D.2d 495). We find no merit to the Supreme Court's conclusion that the form of the notice was so confusing as to render it ineffective (see, e.g., Graham v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 144 A.D.2d 339; Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. [Ramos], supra). Since Interboro validly terminated its policy prior to the time of the accident in question, the purchaser of that policy was uninsured at the time of the accident, and the petitioner was not entitled to a permanent stay of arbitration of the uninsured motorist claim made by its insured.
Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Goldstein and McGinity, JJ., concur.