Rosen v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rosen v. City of New York

245 A.D.2d 202, 666 N.Y.S.2d 594, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13313

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

DecidedDecember 23, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 245 A.D.2d 202 (Rosen v. City of New York) 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

Rosen v. City of New York, 245 A.D.2d 202, 666 N.Y.S.2d 594, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13313 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis York, J.), entered on or about November 1, 1996, which, in a third-party action seeking a declaration that third-party defendant insurer is obligated to defend and indemnify third-party plaintiffs additional insureds in an underlying action for personal injuries, insofar as appealed from as limited by the insurer’s brief, denied the insurer’s cross motion for summary judgment declaring that it is not so obligated, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

[203]*203As the IAS Court pertinently noted, the insurer, asserting lack of timely notice, disclaimed coverage of the additional insureds before the latter had asserted any claims against the primary insured. Therefore, at the time of such disclaimer, the notice given by the primary insured was applicable as well to the additional insureds (see, National Union Fire Ins. Co. v Insurance Co., 188 AD2d 259, 261, lv denied 81 NY2d 709). Nor does the insurer demonstrate any prejudice attributable to the additional insureds’ late notice or other “sound reason” for excusing its performance (Unigard Sec. Ins. Co. v North Riv. Ins. Co., 79 NY2d 576, 584). Accordingly, the determinative issue is the timeliness of the notice provided by the primary insured, as to which disclosure is needed. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Wallach, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis York, J.), entered on or about November 1, 1996, which, in a third-party action seeking a declaration that third-party defendant insurer is obligated to defend and indemnify third-party plaintiffs additional insureds in an underlying action for personal injuries, insofar as appealed from as limited by the insurer’s brief, denied the insurer’s cross motion for summary judgment declaring that it is not so obligated, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

[203]*203As the IAS Court pertinently noted, the insurer, asserting lack of timely notice, disclaimed coverage of the additional insureds before the latter had asserted any claims against the primary insured. Therefore, at the time of such disclaimer, the notice given by the primary insured was applicable as well to the additional insureds (see, National Union Fire Ins. Co. v Insurance Co., 188 AD2d 259, 261, lv denied 81 NY2d 709). Nor does the insurer demonstrate any prejudice attributable to the additional insureds’ late notice or other “sound reason” for excusing its performance (Unigard Sec. Ins. Co. v North Riv. Ins. Co., 79 NY2d 576, 584). Accordingly, the determinative issue is the timeliness of the notice provided by the primary insured, as to which disclosure is needed. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Wallach, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 A.D.2d 202, 666 N.Y.S.2d 594, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13313, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosen-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack