Case Name: Nassau Insurance Company, Appellant, v. Diane M. Murray et al., Respondents; In the Matter of Empire Mutual Insurance Company, Appellant, v. Philip Sash et al., Respondents
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1978-12-27
Citations: 46 N.Y.2d 828
Docket Number: 
Parties: Nassau Insurance Company, Appellant, v Diane M. Murray et al., Respondents. In the Matter of Empire Mutual Insurance Company, Appellant, v Philip Sash et al., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 46
Pages: 828–830

Head Matter:
Nassau Insurance Company, Appellant, v Diane M. Murray et al., Respondents. In the Matter of Empire Mutual Insurance Company, Appellant, v Philip Sash et al., Respondents.
Argued October 27, 1978;
decided December 27,1978
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Bertram Herman for Nassau Insurance Company, appellant.
Philip Hoffer, Rose L. Hoffer and Peter T. Affatato for Empire Mutual Insurance Company, appellant.
Charles F. Brady and Benjamin Purvin for Allstate Insurance Company, respondent.
Leonard Sheft for Aetna Insurance Company, respondent.
Dolores Gerber for Criterion Insurance Company, respondent.

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
In both cases, the orders of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
Where, as here, the proof exhibits an office practice and procedure followed by the insurers in the regular course of their business, which shows that the notices of cancellation have been duly addressed and mailed, a presumption arises that those notices have been received by the insureds (News Syndicate Co. v Gatti Paper Stock Corp., 256 NY 211, 214; Gardam & Son v Batterson, 198 NY 175, 178; Richardson, Evidence [Prince — 10th ed], § 80). Denial of receipt by the insureds, standing alone, is insufficient to rebut the presumption. In addition to a claim of no receipt, there must be a showing that routine office practice was not followed or was so careless that it would be unreasonable to assume that the notice was mailed (see Trusts & Guar. Co. v Barnhardt, 270 NY 350, 354-355). We would hasten to add, however, that in order for the presumption to arise, office practice must be geared so as to ensure the likelihood that a notice of cancellation is always properly addressed and mailed.
Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in memorandum.
In each case: Order affirmed.