Stevens v. Hults

• Decision Date: 16 December 1963
• Citation: Stevens v. Hults, 245 N.Y.S.2d 425, 41 Misc.2d 168 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1963)
• Parties: Lyle Kent STEVENS, Petitioner, v. William S. HULTS, as Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court

Page 425

245 N.Y.S.2d 425

41 Misc.2d 168

Lyle Kent STEVENS, Petitioner, v. William S. HULTS, as Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Special Term for Motions, Jefferson County.

Dec. 16, 1963.

Lewis G. Spicer, Jr., Watertown, for petitioner.

Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen. (Herman H. Arkin, Syracuse, of counsel), for respondent.

RICHARD J. CARDAMONE, Justice.

The petitioner, Lyle Kent Stevens, a resident of the State of New York, had his Operator's License and Registration revoked by the respondent, the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles of the State of New York, by an order dated September 17, 1963. The petitioner's automobile was involved in an accident on May 31, 1963 at a time when there had been filed with the Department of Motor Vehicles a Form FS-4 from the petitioner's insurer stating that the petitioner's insurance had been terminated as of May 23, 1963.

The petitioner brings this proceeding to have this Court review and set aside the revocation of his license and registration. In his petition, the petitioner sets forth facts which would indicate that his failure to have insurance coverage was not due to any fault of his, but that it was an error on the part of his insurance agent or the insurance company which the petitioner claims failed to send him a twenty day notice (sic) prior to the cancellation.

Article 6, section 318, subdivision 2(a) of the Vehicle and Traffic Law provides:

'The Commissioner upon receipt of evidence that the owner of a motor vehicle registered in this state * * * has operated * * * such motor vehicle * * * upon the public highways of this * * * state while proof of financial security was not in effect with respect to such vehicle, shall revoke the registration, if any, of the vehicle and the driver's license, if any, of such owner.'

The respondent, Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, received the FS-4 from the Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, dated May 23, 1963, advising him that the insurance of the petitioner had been terminated on that date. Article 6 further provides that the owner of a motor vehicle shall maintain proof of financial security continuously throughout the period of registration. The Commissioner's action here was proper. The statute is mandatory. He is not required, nor permitted to determine controverted questions of fact as are raised in this petition. The beneficial purposes of the statute would be considerably weakened if it were otherwise. (Bookbinder v. Hults, as Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 19 Misc.2d 1062, 192 N.Y.S.2d 331 (Sup.Ct., Kings County, 1959)). Petitioner relies here upon the requirements of section 313 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law which provide that no contract of insurance shall be cancelled by the insurer for non-payment of premium until after ten days' notice is given the insured. This section and cases cited by petitioner have application in actions against the insurer but are not relevant here. (Connecticut Fire Insurance Company v. Williams, 9 A.D.2d 461, 194 N.Y.S.2d 952 (Third Dep't. 1959); LaBarre v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, 16 A.D.2d 842(5), 227 N.Y.S.2d 632 (Third Dep't. 1962); Mong v. Allstate Insurance Co., 15 A.D.2d 257, 223 N.Y.S.2d 218 (Fourth Dep't. 1962)).

The burden is on the insured to comply with the statute and to either cease operating his automobile when his insurance expires or to obtain new insurance. The petitioner having failed to do either, the Commissioner's action was mandatory under the statute (Vehicle & Traffic Law, sec. 318, subd. 2(a)).

The supervening public interest that attaches to the...