Goodwin Bowler Associates, Ltd. v. Eastern Mutual Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Goodwin Bowler Associates, Ltd. v. Eastern Mutual Insurance

259 A.D.2d 381, 687 N.Y.S.2d 126, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2832

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

DecidedMarch 23, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 259 A.D.2d 381 (Goodwin Bowler Associates, Ltd. v. Eastern Mutual 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

Goodwin Bowler Associates, Ltd. v. Eastern Mutual Insurance, 259 A.D.2d 381, 687 N.Y.S.2d 126, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2832 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.), entered on or about January 7, 1998, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly declined to credit assertions in plaintiffs’ affidavit in opposition to the motion as to when they first gave defendant insurer notice of their claim in light of detailed contradictory assertions in plaintiffs’ examination under oath (see, Califano v Campaniello, 243 AD2d 528, 529-530). Having found that plaintiffs delayed two months in submitting their notice of claim, the court then properly concluded that plaintiffs’ delay was unreasonable as a matter of law, in view of plaintiffs’ misguided but knowing “election to look to one source rather than another for reimbursement” (Power Auth. v Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 117 AD2d 336, 341). Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Lerner, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.), entered on or about January 7, 1998, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly declined to credit assertions in plaintiffs’ affidavit in opposition to the motion as to when they first gave defendant insurer notice of their claim in light of detailed contradictory assertions in plaintiffs’ examination under oath (see, Califano v Campaniello, 243 AD2d 528, 529-530). Having found that plaintiffs delayed two months in submitting their notice of claim, the court then properly concluded that plaintiffs’ delay was unreasonable as a matter of law, in view of plaintiffs’ misguided but knowing “election to look to one source rather than another for reimbursement” (Power Auth. v Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 117 AD2d 336, 341). Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Lerner, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D.2d 381, 687 N.Y.S.2d 126, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2832, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goodwin-bowler-associates-ltd-v-eastern-mutual-insurance-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack