Langabeer v. Hults

• Decision Date: 14 January 1967
• Citation: Langabeer v. Hults, 276 N.Y.S.2d 430, 52 Misc.2d 730 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1967)
• Parties: Harvey T. LANGABEER, III, Petitioner, v. William S. HULTS, etc., Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court

Page 430

276 N.Y.S.2d 430

52 Misc.2d 730

Harvey T. LANGABEER, III, Petitioner, v. William S. HULTS, etc., Respondent.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Suffolk County, Part I.

Jan. 14, 1967.

William G. Kerwick, Baldwin, for petitioner.

Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen., Albany, for respondent.

MEMORANDUM

JACK STANISLAW, Justice.

Langabeer was driving a car involved in an accident on September 1, 1964. The car was uninsured at the time and so, on June 21, 1966, the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles made an order revoking Langabeer's driver's license as well as the registration and license of the ostensible owner of the vehicle, Langabeer's wife. However, this order was amended June 30, 1966 so as to rescind the prior order so far as Mrs. Langabeer was concerned and to revoke petitioner's registration of the car in addition to his license.

This petition is directed to a review of the respondent Commissioner's actions, and asks that they be set aside and Langabeer's license reinstated. It seems that up to about August 16, 1964 the car had been registered in Mrs. Langabeer's name. On that date she claims to have transferred the car to her husband. She advised her auto liability insurance broker to that effect about that same time. Five days later the insurer notified the Motor Vehicle Bureau that the registered owner had terminated her policy. After the accident the insurer disclaimed coverage. A suit against the carrier for judgment declaring its obligation to insure petitioner is now pending. It is Langabeer's contention in that lawsuit and here that the insurer was obligated to continue its coverage of this automobile inasmuch as it had notice of the prior owner's act of turning the car over to petitioner, to be operated by him in this state, thus requiring the carrier to terminate coverage other than by its unilateral act.

Respondent Commissioner has the statutory obligation to revoke upon learning that an uninsured automobile has been operated on public highways in this state (Vehicle & Traffic Law, § 318). The insurer notified the Motor Vehicle Bureau of the termination of coverage prior to petitioner's accident. That and the accident itself brought a probability of the vehicle's lack of insurance to respondent's attention.

The respondent is not required to determine questions regarding the method of the insurer's notice of termination. All he needs is sufficient evidence of non-insurance, and for that purpose the notice forwarded by the carrier...