Robustelli v. Chicago Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Robustelli v. Chicago Insurance

288 A.D.2d 456, 733 N.Y.S.2d 885, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11341

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

DecidedNovember 26, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 288 A.D.2d 456 (Robustelli v. Chicago 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

Robustelli v. Chicago Insurance, 288 A.D.2d 456, 733 N.Y.S.2d 885, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11341 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action for a judgment declaring that the respondent, Chicago Insurance Company, is obligated to defend and indemnify the plaintiff in an action entitled Boulanger v Robustelli, pending in the Supreme Court, Westchester County, under Index No. 19200/99, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), entered October 23, 2000, which granted the respondent’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it and denied its cross motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof granting the motion and substituting therefor a provision denying that motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court erred in granting summary judgment to the respondent on the ground that the plaintiff failed to give timely notice of the claim. Although the respondent made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether he had a “good-faith belief of nonliability’ (Security Mut. Ins. Co. v Acker-Fitzsimons Corp., 31 NY2d 436, 441; cf., Travelers Indem. Co. v Worthy, 281 AD2d 411; Bellefonte Ins. Co. v Albert, 99 AD2d 947). Ritter, J. P., Krausman, Luciano and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action for a judgment declaring that the respondent, Chicago Insurance Company, is obligated to defend and indemnify the plaintiff in an action entitled Boulanger v Robustelli, pending in the Supreme Court, Westchester County, under Index No. 19200/99, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), entered October 23, 2000, which granted the respondent’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it and denied its cross motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof granting the motion and substituting therefor a provision denying that motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court erred in granting summary judgment to the respondent on the ground that the plaintiff failed to give timely notice of the claim. Although the respondent made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether he had a “good-faith belief of nonliability’ (Security Mut. Ins. Co. v Acker-Fitzsimons Corp., 31 NY2d 436, 441; cf., Travelers Indem. Co. v Worthy, 281 AD2d 411; Bellefonte Ins. Co. v Albert, 99 AD2d 947). Ritter, J. P., Krausman, Luciano and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

288 A.D.2d 456, 733 N.Y.S.2d 885, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11341, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robustelli-v-chicago-insurance-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack