1840 Concourse Associates, LP v. Praetorian Insurance

89 A.D.3d 592, 934 N.Y.2d 112
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 22, 2011·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

In this action for breach of contract based on a commercial property policy issued by defendant insurer to plaintiff property owner, defendant established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by showing that plaintiff commenced this action after expiration of the two-year limitations period contained in the policy (see Gilbert Frank Corp. v Federal Ins. Co., 70 NY2d 966, 967-968 [1988]). In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the action was governed by the six-year statute of limitations set forth in CPLR 213 (id.). Moreover, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to waiver or estoppel (id.).

Because plaintiffs claim is barred by the applicable two-year statute of limitations, we decline to consider any remaining arguments. Concur — Tom, J.P, Saxe, Sweeney, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1840 Concourse Associates, LP v. Praetorian Insurance, 89 A.D.3d 592, 934 N.Y.2d 112 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

89 A.D.3d 592 (1840 Concourse Associates, LP v. Praetorian Insurance) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

John v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
116 A.D.3d 1010 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
BALUK, SVETLANA v. NEW YORK CENTRAL MUTUAL FIRE INSURA
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014