Omni Commercial Corp. v. Travelers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Omni Commercial Corp. v. Travelers

210 A.D.2d 107, 621 N.Y.S.2d 840, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12685

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

DecidedDecember 13, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 210 A.D.2d 107 (Omni Commercial Corp. v. Travelers) 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

Omni Commercial Corp. v. Travelers, 210 A.D.2d 107, 621 N.Y.S.2d 840, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12685 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Peter Tom, J.), entered June 17, 1993, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court properly granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint where plaintiff gave untimely notice of the claim, more than five months after the loss (see, Security Mut. Ins. Co. v Acker-Fitzsimons Corp., 31 NY2d 436). Plaintiff’s excuse that it did not know that the additional insurance coverage was issued is unavailing since the record demonstrates that a letter confirming the additional coverage was sent to plaintiff, and that plaintiff paid the premium several months before the loss occurred (see, Pandora Indus. v St. Paul Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 188 AD2d 277). Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Kupferman, Rubin and Nardelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Peter Tom, J.), entered June 17, 1993, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court properly granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint where plaintiff gave untimely notice of the claim, more than five months after the loss (see, Security Mut. Ins. Co. v Acker-Fitzsimons Corp., 31 NY2d 436). Plaintiff’s excuse that it did not know that the additional insurance coverage was issued is unavailing since the record demonstrates that a letter confirming the additional coverage was sent to plaintiff, and that plaintiff paid the premium several months before the loss occurred (see, Pandora Indus. v St. Paul Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 188 AD2d 277). Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Kupferman, Rubin and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

210 A.D.2d 107, 621 N.Y.S.2d 840, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12685, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/omni-commercial-corp-v-travelers-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack