R & L Richmond Avenue Corp. v. Public Service Mutual Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

R & L Richmond Avenue Corp. v. Public Service Mutual Insurance

56 A.D.2d 643, 867 N.Y.S.2d 340

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

DecidedNovember 18, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 56 A.D.2d 643 (R & L Richmond Avenue Corp. v. Public Service 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

R & L Richmond Avenue Corp. v. Public Service Mutual Insurance, 56 A.D.2d 643, 867 N.Y.S.2d 340 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the defendant is obligated to defend and indemnify the plaintiff in an underlying personal injury action entitled Velasquez v Holi[644]*644day Plaza, LLC, pending in the Supreme Court, Richmond County, under index No. 102441/06, the defendant appeals from an order of the same court (Maltese, J.), dated February 25, 2008, which denied its motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In opposition to the defendant insurer’s prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law based upon the plaintiffs eight-month delay in reporting the underlying occurrence to it, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the delay was reasonable, based upon a good faith belief in its nonliability. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment (see St. James Mech., Inc. v Royal & Sunalliance, 44 AD3d 1030, 1031-1032 [2007]; Genova v Regal Mar. Indus., 309 AD2d 733 [2003]). Spolzino, J.P., Florio, McCarthy and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the defendant is obligated to defend and indemnify the plaintiff in an underlying personal injury action entitled Velasquez v Holi[644]*644day Plaza, LLC, pending in the Supreme Court, Richmond County, under index No. 102441/06, the defendant appeals from an order of the same court (Maltese, J.), dated February 25, 2008, which denied its motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In opposition to the defendant insurer’s prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law based upon the plaintiffs eight-month delay in reporting the underlying occurrence to it, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the delay was reasonable, based upon a good faith belief in its nonliability. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment (see St. James Mech., Inc. v Royal & Sunalliance, 44 AD3d 1030, 1031-1032 [2007]; Genova v Regal Mar. Indus., 309 AD2d 733 [2003]). Spolzino, J.P., Florio, McCarthy and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 A.D.2d 643, 867 N.Y.S.2d 340, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/r-l-richmond-avenue-corp-v-public-service-mutual-insurance-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack