Opinion
March 7, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County, Groh, J., Kassoff, J.
Ordered that the order and judgment dated February 25, 1992, is reversed, on the law, the petition in Proceeding No. 1 is dismissed, and the petitioner is directed to proceed to arbitration; and it is further,
Ordered that the order and judgment dated May 7, 1992, is reversed, on the law, the petition in Proceeding No. 2 is dismissed, and the petitioner is directed to proceed to arbitration; and it is further,
Ordered that the appellants are awarded one bill of costs, payable by the petitioner State Farm Automobile Mutual Insurance Company.
While the initial burden of demonstrating a valid cancellation is on the insurance company which disclaims coverage (see, Saranac Lake Fed. Sav. Loan Assn. v. Fidelity Deposit Co., 159 A.D.2d 895; Federal Ins. Co. v. Kimbrough, 116 A.D.2d 692; Holmes v. Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 92 A.D.2d 1045), once the appellant offered into evidence a notice of termination with proof of mailing, the burden shifted to the State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (hereinafter State Farm), as the party disputing the cancellation, to "establish noncompliance with the statute as to form and procedure" (Berrios v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 162 A.D.2d 365). We find that State Farm failed to sustain its burden here. In this regard, we note that the appellant's notice of termination, which informed the owner of the offending vehicle that it had rejected her insurance application due to the age and excessive odometer reading of the vehicle she wished to insure, was sufficiently specific to satisfy the requirements of Insurance Law § 3425 (b) (cf., Messing v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 42 A.D.2d 1030). Moreover, there is no indication that the grounds for cancellation set forth in the appellant's notice of termination were false or inaccurate (cf., Nassau Ins. Co. v. Hernandez, 65 A.D.2d 551). Miller, J.P., Copertino, Santucci and Goldstein, JJ., concur.