Meserole Factory, LLC v. Arch Insurance Group

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Meserole Factory, LLC v. Arch Insurance Group

88 A.D.3d 967, 931 N.Y.2d 533

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

DecidedOctober 25, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 88 A.D.3d 967 (Meserole Factory, LLC v. Arch Insurance Group) 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

Meserole Factory, LLC v. Arch Insurance Group, 88 A.D.3d 967, 931 N.Y.2d 533 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the plaintiff failed to provide the defendant Arch Specialty Insurance Company with a sworn proof-of-loss statement within 60 days after receiving a demand to do so, accompanied by proof-of-loss forms (see Insurance Law § 3407 [a]; Ball v Allstate Ins. Co., 81 NY2d 22, 25-26 [1993]; Anthony Marino Constr. Corp. v INA Underwriters Ins. Co., 69 NY2d 798, 800 [1987]; Maleh v New York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assn., 64 NY2d 613, 614 [1984]; DeRenzis v Allstate Ins. Co., 256 AD2d 303, 304 [1998]; Litter v Allstate Ins. Co., 208 AD2d 602 [1994]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

In light of this determination, the plaintiff’s remaining contention need not be reached. Dillon, J.E, Balkin, Eng and Cohen, JJ., concur.

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

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the plaintiff failed to provide the defendant Arch Specialty Insurance Company with a sworn proof-of-loss statement within 60 days after receiving a demand to do so, accompanied by proof-of-loss forms (see Insurance Law § 3407 [a]; Ball v Allstate Ins. Co., 81 NY2d 22, 25-26 [1993]; Anthony Marino Constr. Corp. v INA Underwriters Ins. Co., 69 NY2d 798, 800 [1987]; Maleh v New York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assn., 64 NY2d 613, 614 [1984]; DeRenzis v Allstate Ins. Co., 256 AD2d 303, 304 [1998]; Litter v Allstate Ins. Co., 208 AD2d 602 [1994]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

In light of this determination, the plaintiff’s remaining contention need not be reached. Dillon, J.E, Balkin, Eng and Cohen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 A.D.3d 967, 931 N.Y.2d 533, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meserole-factory-llc-v-arch-insurance-group-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack