Preferred Mut. Ins. Co. v DonnellyPreferred Mut. Ins. Co. v Donnelly
Preferred Mut. Ins. Co. v Donnelly, 111 AD3d 1242, affirmed.
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Athari & Associates, LLC, Utica (Mo Athari of counsel), for appellant.
Schnitter Ciccarelli Mills PLLC, East Amherst (Joseph M. Schnitter of counsel), for respondent.
Memorandum.
The Appellate Division order should be affirmed with costs.
The Appellate Division correctly determined that the plaintiff insurer presented sufficient evidence of a regular office practice to ensure the proper mailing of notifications to insureds so as to raise the presumption that such a notification was mailed to and received by the insured. Specifically, the plaintiff insurer submitted an affidavit from an employee who had personal knowledge of the practices utilized by the insurer at the time of the alleged mailing to ensure the accuracy of addresses, as well as office procedures relating to the delivery of mail to the post office. Thus, the plaintiff insurer provided proper notice of the amendment to the policy upon renewal adding the relevant exclusion. Defendant‘s remaining contentions are without merit.
Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott, Rivera and Abdus-Salaam concur.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (