Judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: Defendant contends that because of defects in the office procedures employed by the premium finance company in mailing notices of intention to cancel insurance policies, the policy which underlies this dispute was not effectively canceled under Banking Law § 576 (1) (a). Even assuming that proof of mailing was insufficient, there should be an affirmance.
Certain facts are undisputed. The insured failed to make any payments after his initial default; defendant acknowledges that the finance company’s procedures for mailing notices of cancellation were proper (see, Banking Law § 576 [1]
