Opinion
14691N, 452014/12
03-31-2015
In re MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT INDEMNIFICATION CORPORATION, Petitioner–Appellant, v. AMERICAN COUNTRY INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent–Respondent.
Marshall & Marshall, PLLC, Jericho (Jeffrey D. Kadushin of counsel), for appellant. Dwyer & Taglia, New York (Joshua T. Reece of counsel), for respondent.
Marshall & Marshall, PLLC, Jericho (Jeffrey D. Kadushin of counsel), for appellant.
Dwyer & Taglia, New York (Joshua T. Reece of counsel), for respondent.
Opinion Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Cynthia S. Kern, J.), entered February 14, 2014, which, upon granting reargument, vacated the amended order, same court and Justice, entered June 6, 2013, confirming an arbitration award in favor of petitioner and denying respondent's cross petition seeking to vacate the arbitration award, and granted the cross petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Respondent made a prima facie showing that the offending vehicle in this no-fault arbitration was insured by Global Liberty Insurance of New York, by submitting a Department of Motor Vehicle expansion, indicating that Global had insured the vehicle subsequent to respondent's coverage (see Eagle Ins. Co. v. Kapelevich, 307 A.D.2d 927, 762 N.Y.S.2d 896 [2d Dept. 2003] ; lv. denied 1 N.Y.3d 503, 775 N.Y.S.2d 779, 807 N.E.2d 892 [2003] ; Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Youngblood, 270 A.D.2d 493, 705 N.Y.S.2d 619 [2d Dept.2000] ). By operation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 313(1)(a), the subsequent coverage terminated respondent's coverage of the same vehicle as of the effective date and hour of Global's coverage, irrespective of whether respondent had otherwise complied with the cancellation requirements of the Vehicle and Traffic Law (see Employers Commercial Union Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Firemen's Fund Ins. Co., 45 N.Y.2d 608, 611, 412 N.Y.S.2d 121, 384 N.E.2d 668 [1978] ). Thus, it was arbitrary and capricious for the arbitrator to find that respondent was the insurer of the vehicle at the time of the accident because it failed to demonstrate that it had properly cancelled its policy. The arbitration award was also in excess of the arbitrator's authority, where it awarded coverage when none existed (cf. Countrywide Ins. Co. v. Sawh, 272 A.D.2d 245, 708 N.Y.S.2d 862 [1st Dept.2000] ; Matter of State Farm Ins. Co. v. Credle, 228 A.D.2d 191, 643 N.Y.S.2d 97 [1st Dept.1996] ).
FRIEDMAN, J.P., RENWICK, MOSKOWITZ, RICHTER, CLARK, JJ., concur.