VTL 313 in action

Last reviewed: September 2026.

Historical note (September 2026): this note reads a 2020 decision applying VTL § 313’s notice and DMV-filing steps; the statute is linked in the text. The mailing-proof principles that decide most cancellation disputes are collected in the mailing and proof of service hub.

Case Background

SK Prime Medical Supply v Permanent General Assurance Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 52052(U), was decided December 13, 2019, by the Appellate Term, Second Department.

The provider sought assigned no-fault benefits. The insurer asserted that it had canceled the policy for nonpayment before the accident. The appellate court reversed the denial of the insurer’s motion and granted dismissal.

What the court found

The insurer proved mailing of the cancellation notice under VTL § 313(1) and filing with DMV within 30 days of the effective cancellation date under § 313(2)(a).

The assignor was neither the named insured nor a member of the insured’s household. The court found the cancellation effective against that assignor under § 313(3).

The opinion cites KJC Chiropractic, P.C. v Hartford Insurance Co., 2019 NY Slip Op 51792(U), and contrasts Matter of Progressive Classic Insurance Co. v Kitchen, 46 AD3d 333 (2007).

It does not reproduce the filing exhibit or announce that an underwriting affidavit always substitutes for DMV evidence.

Jason Tenenbaum’s original February 2020 analysis

I want to see the defendant’s proof of filing. I see a “c.f.” to Kitchen so I know they did not obtain a certified record from DMV.

Was it a DMV from underwriting that in the course and conduct of our business, we timely filed the cancellation? Hmm..

Jason’s question about the underlying proof remains a question. The published decision alone does not let a reader identify every document submitted on the motion.

Legal Significance

VTL § 313 separates notice to the insured from DMV reporting and the effect of cancellation on third parties. These are not interchangeable steps.

Subsection (3) treats a DMV receipt as conclusive evidence of filing. It also addresses timely filings’ effective dates and replacement insurance. A late filing is not accurately described as making every cancellation permanently void.

The trigger matters too: removing a vehicle while continuing the policy is different from terminating the policy itself.

Practical Implications

For a cancellation dispute, assemble a dated record:

• The policy, endorsements and stated reason for cancellation.
• The insured’s notice, mailing address and mailing proof.
• The stated effective date and time.
• DMV filing evidence, including acceptance or receipt records.
• Any replacement policy and its effective date.
• The injured person’s relationship to the named insured.

Compare the documents with the statutory text applicable to the transaction. A citation signal in a short appellate opinion should not replace examination of the actual proof.

Connect to the Encyclopedia

• Topic hub: Mailing & Proof of Service
• VTL 313(2)(a) filing requirements not met
• Insurance mailing affidavit requirements
• No-fault defense and coverage litigation
• Legal Encyclopedia
• 15 days is 360 hours
• Defective cancellation abrogated upon proof that another carrier picked up risk

The case discussion preserves the historical result. Later statutory amendments and subsequent treatment should be checked before relying on it in a current matter.