Bailey v Jsl/huntington Agency, Inc.

[*1] Bailey v JSL/huntington Agency, Inc. 2007 NY Slip Op 51303(U) [16 Misc 3d 129(A)] Decided on June 29, 2007 Appellate Term, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected in part through July 2, 2007; it will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on June 29, 2007
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : RUDOLPH, P.J., McCABE and TANENBAUM, JJ
2005-1876 S C.

Julius Bailey, Appellant,

against

JSL/huntington Agency, Inc. d/b/a Dcap Huntington, Inc., Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, First District (John J. Toomey, Jr., J.), entered February 5, 2003. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.

Judgment affirmed without costs.

In this small claims action, plaintiff sought damages because his insurance broker allegedly had him execute a contract with a premium finance company without his consent. Since he incorrectly believed that the finance company was his insurance carrier, he ignored correspondence from the actual carrier which notified him that he needed to pay a premium adjustment in order to keep his policy in force. Plaintiff did not timely pay the premium adjustment, and the carrier subsequently notified the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles that the policy had lapsed. As a result, plaintiff alleged that his driver's license was suspended, causing him to incur, inter alia, car service expenses.

Substantial justice was done between the parties in accordance with the rules and principles of substantive law (UDCA 1804, 1807). The court properly found, based upon the evidence presented at trial, that plaintiff failed to establish that any act or omission of defendant had caused his insurance to lapse and his driver's license to be suspended. Plaintiff admitted receiving, and not attending to, correspondence from his insurance company that would have [*2]alerted him to the premium adjustment that he failed to timely pay, resulting in the interruption of coverage. The paperwork that plaintiff signed in defendant's office is clearly denominated as a "premium finance agreement," and plaintiff's failure to read the contract prior to signing it contributed to his misunderstanding of the nature of the contract (see e.g. Dunn v Northgate Ford, Inc., 16 AD3d 875 [2005]).

Rudolph, P.J., McCabe and Tanenbaum, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: June 29, 2007