Quantum Color Corp. v. CGU Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Quantum Color Corp. v. CGU Insurance

280 A.D.2d 899, 720 N.Y.S.2d 438, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1197

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

DecidedFebruary 7, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 280 A.D.2d 899 (Quantum Color Corp. v. CGU 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

Quantum Color Corp. v. CGU Insurance, 280 A.D.2d 899, 720 N.Y.S.2d 438, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1197 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: A fire destroyed plaintiff’s premises located at 8742-8748 Buffalo Avenue in the City of Niagara Falls on December 6, 1996. The premises were insured under a policy issued by defendant. Plaintiff submitted a claim for $479,993.98, but defendant paid only $254,040.60 on the claim. Plaintiff contends that, during negotiations over the difference, defendant agreed to proceed to an appraisal arbitration process pursuant to the policy. Because negotiations failed, plaintiff commenced this breach of contract action, [900]*900but only after the two-year contractual limitations’ period expired. Plaintiff moved for arbitration and appraisal and defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as time-barred.

Supreme Court erred in granting plaintiff’s motion and properly denied defendant’s cross motion because an issue of fact exists whether the parties agreed to the appraisal process prior to the expiration of the contractual limitations’ period (see generally, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). We therefore modify the order by denying plaintiffs motion.

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and conclude that they are lacking in merit. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Joslin, J. — Arbitration.) Present — Pine, J. P., Hayes, Wisner and Lawton, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: A fire destroyed plaintiff’s premises located at 8742-8748 Buffalo Avenue in the City of Niagara Falls on December 6, 1996. The premises were insured under a policy issued by defendant. Plaintiff submitted a claim for $479,993.98, but defendant paid only $254,040.60 on the claim. Plaintiff contends that, during negotiations over the difference, defendant agreed to proceed to an appraisal arbitration process pursuant to the policy. Because negotiations failed, plaintiff commenced this breach of contract action, [900]*900but only after the two-year contractual limitations’ period expired. Plaintiff moved for arbitration and appraisal and defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as time-barred.

Supreme Court erred in granting plaintiff’s motion and properly denied defendant’s cross motion because an issue of fact exists whether the parties agreed to the appraisal process prior to the expiration of the contractual limitations’ period (see generally, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). We therefore modify the order by denying plaintiffs motion.

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and conclude that they are lacking in merit. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Joslin, J. — Arbitration.) Present — Pine, J. P., Hayes, Wisner and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D.2d 899, 720 N.Y.S.2d 438, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1197, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/quantum-color-corp-v-cgu-insurance-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack