Opinion
March 31, 1992
Appeal from the Civil Court, New York County (Peter Tom, J.).
In this action for wrongful cancellation of an insurance policy, defendant insurer's notice of cancellation relied on generalized and incomplete language that could have referred to any of three different clauses of section 167-a (3) (b) of the former Insurance Law, now Insurance Law § 3425 (c) (2). In addition, the notice left blank a box that would have allowed defendant to indicate with code that it was cancelling on statutory grounds, and to incorporate, through the use of that code, language that would have complied fully with the statute (see, K G Feathered Pets v Lo Presti, 100 A.D.2d 894). The notice of cancellation being ambiguous, Appellate Term correctly resolved the ambiguity against the insurer that issued it (see, Government Employees Ins. Co. v Mizell, 36 A.D.2d 452, 454).
We have considered the defendant's other arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Milonas, J.P., Ellerin, Kupferman and Asch, JJ.