Safonte v. New York Property Insurance Underwriting Ass'n

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Safonte v. New York Property Insurance Underwriting Ass'n

244 A.D.2d 399, 664 N.Y.S.2d 806, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11260

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

DecidedNovember 10, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 244 A.D.2d 399 (Safonte v. New York Property Insurance Underwriting Ass'n) 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

Safonte v. New York Property Insurance Underwriting Ass'n, 244 A.D.2d 399, 664 N.Y.S.2d 806, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11260 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—In consolidated actions to recover on two insurance policies, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.), dated September 16, 1996, which denied its motion for leave to renew that branch of its prior motion which was treated by the court as being for summary judgment dismissing the complaints.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, [400]*400the motion for leave to renew is granted, and, upon renewal, that branch of the defendant’s prior motion which was treated by the court as being for summary judgment dismissing the complaints is granted.

These actions to recover for two fire losses were commenced after expiration of the two-year contractual limitations period set forth in the insurance policies issued by the defendant. The Supreme Court erred in failing to grant summary judgment dismissing the actions as untimely. While the plaintiffs contend that the defendant waived or is estopped from asserting the limitations period as a defense, they failed to demonstrate any triable issue with regard to waiver or estoppel.

The plaintiff Tony Safonte, an agent for the other plaintiffs, admittedly committed fraud in connection with the presentation of the claims to the defendant. The plaintiffs are liable for his fraudulent conduct committed within the scope of his employment (see, Adler v Helman, 169 AD2d 925; Tucci v Hartford Cas. Ins. Co., 167 AD2d 387; 3 NY Jur 2d, Agency, §§ 243, 244). Since any assurances of payment allegedly made by the defendant’s claims representative were induced by Safonte’s fraud, the plaintiffs cannot rely on waiver or estoppel to avoid application of the contractual period of limitations (see, 3 NY Jur 2d, Agency, § 243, at 68). Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Altman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In consolidated actions to recover on two insurance policies, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.), dated September 16, 1996, which denied its motion for leave to renew that branch of its prior motion which was treated by the court as being for summary judgment dismissing the complaints.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, [400]*400the motion for leave to renew is granted, and, upon renewal, that branch of the defendant’s prior motion which was treated by the court as being for summary judgment dismissing the complaints is granted.

These actions to recover for two fire losses were commenced after expiration of the two-year contractual limitations period set forth in the insurance policies issued by the defendant. The Supreme Court erred in failing to grant summary judgment dismissing the actions as untimely. While the plaintiffs contend that the defendant waived or is estopped from asserting the limitations period as a defense, they failed to demonstrate any triable issue with regard to waiver or estoppel.

The plaintiff Tony Safonte, an agent for the other plaintiffs, admittedly committed fraud in connection with the presentation of the claims to the defendant. The plaintiffs are liable for his fraudulent conduct committed within the scope of his employment (see, Adler v Helman, 169 AD2d 925; Tucci v Hartford Cas. Ins. Co., 167 AD2d 387; 3 NY Jur 2d, Agency, §§ 243, 244). Since any assurances of payment allegedly made by the defendant’s claims representative were induced by Safonte’s fraud, the plaintiffs cannot rely on waiver or estoppel to avoid application of the contractual period of limitations (see, 3 NY Jur 2d, Agency, § 243, at 68). Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Altman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 A.D.2d 399, 664 N.Y.S.2d 806, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11260, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/safonte-v-new-york-property-insurance-underwriting-assn-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack