Opinion
No. 1044 CA 06-02928.
September 6, 2007.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Steuben County (Peter C. Bradstreet, A.J.), entered July 6, 2006. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted in part plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment.
Before: Present — Martoche, J.P., Smith, Peradotto, Green and Pine, JJ.
It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: We affirm for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court. We add only that, with respect to a notice of cancellation of an insurance policy, "[l]iteral compliance with the provisions of the . . . [applicable] statutes is the rule and any ambiguity in language is strictly construed against the insurer" ( Government Empls. Ins. Co. v Mizell, 36 AD2d 452, 454). Here, defendant failed to refer to Insurance Law § 3426 (c) (1) (A) in its notice cancelling plaintiff's insurance policy for nonpayment of premiums despite the express requirement in Insurance Law § 3426 (h) that "[e]very notice of cancellation issued pursuant to [section 3426] shall. . . contain where applicable a reference to the pertinent paragraph or subparagraph of subsection (c) of this section."