Antao & Chuang v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Antao & Chuang v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance

225 A.D.2d 316, 639 N.Y.2d 322, 639 N.Y.S.2d 322, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1968

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 5, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 225 A.D.2d 316 (Antao & Chuang v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Antao & Chuang v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance, 225 A.D.2d 316, 639 N.Y.2d 322, 639 N.Y.S.2d 322, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1968 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Dismissal of the complaint was warranted on the documentary evidence submitted. Defendant’s rejection of the incomplete proof of loss submitted by plaintiff did not constitute a repudiation of liability thereby excusing plaintiff from satisfying any other policy conditions precedent before filing suit (Lentini Bros. Moving & Stor. Co. v New York Prop. Ins. [317]*317Underwriting Assn., 53 NY2d 835, 836). Upon rejecting the proof of loss, defendant extended plaintiffs time to refile the proof of loss and continued to investigate the claim. Thus, while defendant’s rejection of the proof of loss may have been erroneous since plaintiff substantially complied with the requirement to file a sworn proof of loss (see, Ninth Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v New York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assn., 99 AD2d 456), it was not a repudiation of liability. Plaintiff’s claims for punitive damages and other relief are therefore groundless; however, plaintiff’s substantial compliance warrants a final opportunity to seek relief pursuant to the policy (supra, at 457).

Plaintiff’s motion to renew was properly denied. Plaintiff failed to establish that the letter of November 23, 1993 was unavailable to it when the motion to dismiss was pending and could not have been made known to the court at that time (Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558, 568). Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Kupferman, Ross and Williams, JJ.

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

Dismissal of the complaint was warranted on the documentary evidence submitted. Defendant’s rejection of the incomplete proof of loss submitted by plaintiff did not constitute a repudiation of liability thereby excusing plaintiff from satisfying any other policy conditions precedent before filing suit (Lentini Bros. Moving & Stor. Co. v New York Prop. Ins. [317]*317Underwriting Assn., 53 NY2d 835, 836). Upon rejecting the proof of loss, defendant extended plaintiffs time to refile the proof of loss and continued to investigate the claim. Thus, while defendant’s rejection of the proof of loss may have been erroneous since plaintiff substantially complied with the requirement to file a sworn proof of loss (see, Ninth Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v New York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assn., 99 AD2d 456), it was not a repudiation of liability. Plaintiff’s claims for punitive damages and other relief are therefore groundless; however, plaintiff’s substantial compliance warrants a final opportunity to seek relief pursuant to the policy (supra, at 457).

Plaintiff’s motion to renew was properly denied. Plaintiff failed to establish that the letter of November 23, 1993 was unavailable to it when the motion to dismiss was pending and could not have been made known to the court at that time (Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558, 568). Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Kupferman, Ross and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 A.D.2d 316, 639 N.Y.2d 322, 639 N.Y.S.2d 322, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1968, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/antao-chuang-v-st-paul-fire-marine-insurance-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack