Royal Indemnity Co. v. Belcer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Royal Indemnity Co. v. Belcer

242 A.D.2d 899, 662 N.Y.S.2d 668, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10458

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

DecidedSeptember 30, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 242 A.D.2d 899 (Royal Indemnity Co. v. Belcer) 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

Royal Indemnity Co. v. Belcer, 242 A.D.2d 899, 662 N.Y.S.2d 668, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10458 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied the motion of plaintiff for summary judgment seeking a declaration that it is not obligated to defend or indemnify its insured, Mark Schukraft, in a personal injury action arising from an altercation on November 9, 1993. Plaintiff declined coverage based on Schukraft’s conviction after trial of intentional assault in the third degree in connection with the incident. Insurance Law § 3420 (d) requires an insurer disclaiming coverage to give written notice as soon as reasonably possible, and there is an issue of fact whether the explanation by plaintiff for its delay in this case was reasonable. We agree with plaintiff, however, that defendants are estopped from relitigating the issue of Schukraft’s intent (see, D’Arata v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 76 NY2d 659, 666-668). Schukraft was charged and convicted in Buffalo City Court with intentional assault in the third degree (Penal Law § 120.00 [1]). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Notaro, J.—Sum-

[900]*900mary Judgment.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Wisner, Balio and Fallon, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied the motion of plaintiff for summary judgment seeking a declaration that it is not obligated to defend or indemnify its insured, Mark Schukraft, in a personal injury action arising from an altercation on November 9, 1993. Plaintiff declined coverage based on Schukraft’s conviction after trial of intentional assault in the third degree in connection with the incident. Insurance Law § 3420 (d) requires an insurer disclaiming coverage to give written notice as soon as reasonably possible, and there is an issue of fact whether the explanation by plaintiff for its delay in this case was reasonable. We agree with plaintiff, however, that defendants are estopped from relitigating the issue of Schukraft’s intent (see, D’Arata v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 76 NY2d 659, 666-668). Schukraft was charged and convicted in Buffalo City Court with intentional assault in the third degree (Penal Law § 120.00 [1]). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Notaro, J.—Sum-

[900]*900mary Judgment.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Wisner, Balio and Fallon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

242 A.D.2d 899, 662 N.Y.S.2d 668, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10458, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/royal-indemnity-co-v-belcer-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack