Aponte v. Government Employees Insurance

92 A.D.3d 476, 937 N.Y.2d 853

Opinion

[477] GEICO made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence of plaintiffs 13-month delay in notifying it of the incident with the letter carrier (see e.g. Tower Ins. Co. of N.Y. v Classon Hgts., LLC, 82 AD3d 632, 634 [2011]). Plaintiffs contention that he had a reasonable excuse for failing to give timely notice because he acted in self-defense and did not think the letter carrier “would have the audacity to sue him,” failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Great Canal Realty Corp. v Seneca Ins. Co., Inc., 5 NY3d 742, 744 [2005]; Tower Ins. Co., 82 AD3d at 634-635). Plaintiffs purported belief in nonliability was unreasonable as a matter of law, given that the police arrested him, not the letter carrier, for the incident and that he was indicted in federal court for assaulting the letter carrier. Concur — Tom, J.P, Sweeny, Acosta, Renwick and Román, JJ.

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

Aponte v. Government Employees Insurance, 92 A.D.3d 476, 937 N.Y.2d 853 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

92 A.D.3d 476 (Aponte v. Government Employees Insurance) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Great Canal Realty Corp. v. Seneca Insurance
833 N.E.2d 1196 (New York Court of Appeals, 2005)
Tower Insurance v. Classon Heights, LLC
82 A.D.3d 632 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)