Deutsch v. Paramount Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Deutsch v. Paramount Insurance

247 A.D.2d 272, 667 N.Y.S.2d 908, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1414

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

DecidedFebruary 17, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 247 A.D.2d 272 (Deutsch v. Paramount 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

Deutsch v. Paramount Insurance, 247 A.D.2d 272, 667 N.Y.S.2d 908, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1414 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Lebedeff, J.), entered April 16, 1997, which granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment to the extent of declaring that defendant is obligated to defend plaintiffs in the underlying action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly found that notification to defendant within a week of service of the complaint in the underlying action was reasonable under the circumstances (see, Kelly v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 174 AD2d 481). Given the fact that the plaintiffs reasonably believed that they had repaired all the property damage, paid all the attendant bills and that the property damage claim was settled, they reasonably believed that there was no threat of litigation (see, Merchants Mut. Ins. Co. v Hoffman, 56 NY2d 799). Further, under the circumstances, we agree with the court that there is no evidence that plaintiffs knew or had reason to believe that personal injury had resulted from this incident (see, Argentina v Otsego Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 86 NY2d 748). Accordingly, the court properly declared defendant obligated to defend plaintiffs in the underlying action.

Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rubin, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Lebedeff, J.), entered April 16, 1997, which granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment to the extent of declaring that defendant is obligated to defend plaintiffs in the underlying action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly found that notification to defendant within a week of service of the complaint in the underlying action was reasonable under the circumstances (see, Kelly v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 174 AD2d 481). Given the fact that the plaintiffs reasonably believed that they had repaired all the property damage, paid all the attendant bills and that the property damage claim was settled, they reasonably believed that there was no threat of litigation (see, Merchants Mut. Ins. Co. v Hoffman, 56 NY2d 799). Further, under the circumstances, we agree with the court that there is no evidence that plaintiffs knew or had reason to believe that personal injury had resulted from this incident (see, Argentina v Otsego Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 86 NY2d 748). Accordingly, the court properly declared defendant obligated to defend plaintiffs in the underlying action.

Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rubin, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 A.D.2d 272, 667 N.Y.S.2d 908, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1414, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/deutsch-v-paramount-insurance-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack