Connecticut Indemnity Co. v. Travelers Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Connecticut Indemnity Co. v. Travelers Insurance

300 A.D.2d 530, 752 N.Y.S.2d 560, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12743

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 23, 2002·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

—In an action for a judgment declaring, inter alia, that the plaintiff is not required to provide insurance coverage in connection with the subject accident, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Clemente, J.), dated August 15, 2001, as granted the respective cross motions of the defendants North American Specialty Insurance Company, Canal Hi Fi, Inc., and Anne-Marie Charles for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants North American Specialty Insurance Company, Canal Hi Fi, Inc., and Anne-Marie Charles (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557).

Furthermore, we reject the plaintiffs argument pursuant to CPLR 3212 (f) that summary judgment was premature as discovery was not yet completed. The plaintiffs mere hope that [531]*531it might be able to uncover some evidence during the discovery process is insufficient to deny summary judgment (see Wood v Otherson, 210 AD2d 473; Pow v Black, 182 AD2d 484). Smith, J.P., O’Brien, Krausman and Rivera, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action for a judgment declaring, inter alia, that the plaintiff is not required to provide insurance coverage in connection with the subject accident, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Clemente, J.), dated August 15, 2001, as granted the respective cross motions of the defendants North American Specialty Insurance Company, Canal Hi Fi, Inc., and Anne-Marie Charles for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants North American Specialty Insurance Company, Canal Hi Fi, Inc., and Anne-Marie Charles (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557).

Furthermore, we reject the plaintiffs argument pursuant to CPLR 3212 (f) that summary judgment was premature as discovery was not yet completed. The plaintiffs mere hope that [531]*531it might be able to uncover some evidence during the discovery process is insufficient to deny summary judgment (see Wood v Otherson, 210 AD2d 473; Pow v Black, 182 AD2d 484). Smith, J.P., O’Brien, Krausman and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Connecticut Indemnity Co. v. Travelers Insurance, 300 A.D.2d 530, 752 N.Y.S.2d 560, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12743 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

300 A.D.2d 530 (Connecticut Indemnity Co. v. Travelers Insurance) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related