Denneny v. Lizzie'S Buggies, Inc.

306 A.D.2d 89, 761 N.Y.S.2d 171, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6439
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 10, 2003
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 306 A.D.2d 89 (Denneny v. Lizzie'S Buggies, Inc.) 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
Denneny v. Lizzie'S Buggies, Inc., 306 A.D.2d 89, 761 N.Y.S.2d 171, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6439 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Anne Targum, J.), entered on or about January 16, 2003, which, to the extent appealed from, denied the motion of defendant insurer Providence Washington Insurance Co. (Providence) for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff in an underlying personal injury action obtained a default judgment against defendant Providence’s insured and thereafter commenced this action seeking a declaration that Providence is obligated to indemnify its insured for the liability incurred by it in the underlying action. Although the insured, defendant Lizzie’s Buggies, Inc., never notified Providence of plaintiff’s injury on its premises, a bar, plaintiff’s affidavit and the signed statement by Sean Smyth, a part owner of Lizzie’s Buggies, Inc., and Providence’s own investigative reports suffice to raise a triable issue as to whether plaintiff was diligent in notifying Providence of his personal injury claim (see Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. v CNA Ins. Cos., 99 AD2d 310, 314 [1984]; Jenkins v Burgos, 99 AD2d 217, 220-221 [1984]). Whether plaintiff’s multiple efforts over the course of a year to determine the identity of the bar’s insurer from Smyth, and his search of relevant public records and filings in connection with Lizzie’s Buggies, Inc.’s corporate existence, constituted reasonable efforts to identify and notify Lizzie’s Buggies, Inc.’s insurer, especially in view of the misleading conduct and subterfuge engaged in by Lizzie’s Buggies, Inc.’s principal owner to prevent disclosure of the insurance information sought by plaintiff, is a matter appropriately left for the trier of fact. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Andrias and Lerner, JJ.

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

Related

Kleinberg v. Nevele Hotel, LLC
128 A.D.3d 1126 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Tower Insurance v. Rong Rong Sun
105 A.D.3d 561 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Tower Insurance v. Lin Hsin Long Co.
50 A.D.3d 305 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Kiladze v. Country-Wide Insurance
40 A.D.3d 229 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Appel v. Allstate Insurance
20 A.D.3d 367 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Rochester v. Quincy Mutual Fire Insurance
10 A.D.3d 417 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
306 A.D.2d 89, 761 N.Y.S.2d 171, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6439, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/denneny-v-lizzies-buggies-inc-nyappdiv-2003.