Opinion
August 29, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kassoff, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the respondent Allstate Insurance Company.
While the initial burden of demonstrating a valid cancellation is on the insurance company which disclaims coverage (see, Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Cherian, 202 A.D.2d 434; Berrios v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 162 A.D.2d 365; 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), once the respondent Allstate Insurance Company (hereinafter Allstate) established that it had mailed its insured a notice of cancellation for nonpayment of premiums, the burden shifted to State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (hereinafter the State Farm), as the party disputing the cancellation, to "`establish noncompliance with the statute as to form and procedure'" (Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Cherian, supra, at 435; Berrios v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., supra). We find that State Farm failed to sustain its burden here. Although it is undisputed that the first notice of cancellation sent by Allstate was ineffective, a second notice of cancellation complied with the requirements of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 313 and was properly mailed (see, Barile v. Kavanaugh, 67 N.Y.2d 392; Matter of USAA Cas. Ins. Co. v. Belizaire, 154 A.D.2d 603). Moreover, contrary to State Farm's contention, the second bill and second notice of cancellation were sufficient to apprise the insured that payment of the past due premium was required in order to have the policy remain in effect. Lawrence, J.P., Altman, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.