Opinion
June 26, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Herbert Shapiro, J.).
While the burden of proving a valid cancellation is on the insurance company which disclaims coverage, once a notice of termination is offered the burden shifts to the party disputing the cancellation to establish noncompliance with the statute as to form and procedure. The notice of termination by defendant Hanover Insurance Company of the subject policy met all of the requirements of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 313 (1) (a). Although Hanover could not produce a size facsimile of the original notice, its reproduction from microfiche was acceptable. Any challenge to the type size mandated by the statute on the ground that there was a distortion in the reproduction of the copy from microfiche must be accompanied by an offer of expert proof, lacking herein (Matter of Prudential Prop. Cas. Ins. Co. [Epstein], 70 A.D.2d 953; see also, Duhs v. Royal Globe Ins. Co., 63 A.D.2d 992).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Ross, Carro, Milonas and Rosenberger, JJ.