New York City Transit Authority v. National Union Fire Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

New York City Transit Authority v. National Union Fire Insurance

291 A.D.2d 213, 737 N.Y.S.2d 83, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1433

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

DecidedFebruary 5, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 291 A.D.2d 213 (New York City Transit Authority v. National Union Fire 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

New York City Transit Authority v. National Union Fire Insurance, 291 A.D.2d 213, 737 N.Y.S.2d 83, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1433 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Braun, J.), entered January 10, 200Í, which, inter alia, granted the cross motions of defendants NAB Construction Corp./Grow Tunneling Corp., J.V. (NAB) and National Union Fire Insurance Company (National Union) for summary judgment declaring that they were not obligated to defend and indemnify the plaintiff New York City Transit Authority in the underlying personal injury action of codefendant Altagracia Simo, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Inasmuch as the subject insurance policy required plaintiff insured to tender a notice of a claim thereunder to defendant insurer “as soon as practicable” and plaintiff has failed to offer a reasonable excuse for waiting to advise the insurer of the personal injury claim here at issue by Ms. Simo until some 27 months after it received notice of such claim, plaintiffs notice of claim was untimely as a matter of law (see, Deso v London & Lancashire Indem. Co. of Am., 3 NY2d 127, 129-130). Although plaintiff maintains that its delay was reasonable since it reasonably believed that there was no prospect that it would be held responsible for Ms. Simo’s claim, the record discloses that a timely investigation of the circumstances underlying the claim, such as plaintiff insured was bound to undertake, would have apprised plaintiff that any belief it may have had in its nonliability was not well founded (see, Security Mut. Ins. Co. of N.Y. v Acker -Fitzsimons Corp., 31 NY2d 436, 441). Accordingly, plaintiffs failure to satisfy the condition precedent of timely notice vitiated the policy (see, Deso, supra), and relieved NAB and National Union of any further obligations attendant thereto.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan, Wallach and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Braun, J.), entered January 10, 200Í, which, inter alia, granted the cross motions of defendants NAB Construction Corp./Grow Tunneling Corp., J.V. (NAB) and National Union Fire Insurance Company (National Union) for summary judgment declaring that they were not obligated to defend and indemnify the plaintiff New York City Transit Authority in the underlying personal injury action of codefendant Altagracia Simo, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Inasmuch as the subject insurance policy required plaintiff insured to tender a notice of a claim thereunder to defendant insurer “as soon as practicable” and plaintiff has failed to offer a reasonable excuse for waiting to advise the insurer of the personal injury claim here at issue by Ms. Simo until some 27 months after it received notice of such claim, plaintiffs notice of claim was untimely as a matter of law (see, Deso v London & Lancashire Indem. Co. of Am., 3 NY2d 127, 129-130). Although plaintiff maintains that its delay was reasonable since it reasonably believed that there was no prospect that it would be held responsible for Ms. Simo’s claim, the record discloses that a timely investigation of the circumstances underlying the claim, such as plaintiff insured was bound to undertake, would have apprised plaintiff that any belief it may have had in its nonliability was not well founded (see, Security Mut. Ins. Co. of N.Y. v Acker -Fitzsimons Corp., 31 NY2d 436, 441). Accordingly, plaintiffs failure to satisfy the condition precedent of timely notice vitiated the policy (see, Deso, supra), and relieved NAB and National Union of any further obligations attendant thereto.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan, Wallach and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

291 A.D.2d 213, 737 N.Y.S.2d 83, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1433, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/new-york-city-transit-authority-v-national-union-fire-insurance-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack