St. Nicholas Cathedral of Russian Orthodox Church in North America v. Travelers Property Casualty Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

St. Nicholas Cathedral of Russian Orthodox Church in North America v. Travelers Property Casualty Insurance

45 A.D.3d 411, 846 N.Y.S.2d 113

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

DecidedNovember 20, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 45 A.D.3d 411 (St. Nicholas Cathedral of Russian Orthodox Church in North America v. Travelers Property Casualty 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

St. Nicholas Cathedral of Russian Orthodox Church in North America v. Travelers Property Casualty Insurance, 45 A.D.3d 411, 846 N.Y.S.2d 113 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

[412]*412Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered June 26, 2006, which granted the motion of defendant Travelers Property Casualty Insurance Company (Travelers) to confirm the report of the Special Referee, and denied plaintiff s cross motion to vacate the report, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff seeks a declaration that Travelers is obligated to defend and indemnify it in connection with a pending action arising out of an accident that occurred on the sidewalk adjacent to its property on October 14, 2003. Despite a notice of occurrence provision in its insurance policy, plaintiff did not notify Travelers about the accident until May 10, 2004, after receiving notice of a lawsuit from the injured person.

The evidence adduced before the Special Referee established that plaintiff was immediately aware of the accident, which occurred in front of its property while its contractor was performing work on its behalf, and that it was aware that a person was injured and was removed from the scene in an ambulance. Moreover, plaintiff discussed the accident internally and with others, and was familiar with the insurance policy’s requirement to provide notice of an occurrence “as soon as practicable.” Under the circumstances, plaintiff failed to establish the reasonableness of its belief that no claim would be asserted against it and hence of its seven-month delay in providing notice to Travelers (see SSBSS Realty Corp. v Public Seru. Mut. Ins. Co., 253 AD2d 583, 584 [1998]). We are bound by the holding in Great Canal Realty Corp. v Seneca Ins. Co., Inc. (5 NY3d 742 [2005]) that the insurer need not demonstrate prejudice in a question of late notice, and therefore, the claim is barred by the terms of the policy.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Lippman, P.J., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Catterson and Kavanagh, JJ.

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

[412]*412Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered June 26, 2006, which granted the motion of defendant Travelers Property Casualty Insurance Company (Travelers) to confirm the report of the Special Referee, and denied plaintiff s cross motion to vacate the report, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff seeks a declaration that Travelers is obligated to defend and indemnify it in connection with a pending action arising out of an accident that occurred on the sidewalk adjacent to its property on October 14, 2003. Despite a notice of occurrence provision in its insurance policy, plaintiff did not notify Travelers about the accident until May 10, 2004, after receiving notice of a lawsuit from the injured person.

The evidence adduced before the Special Referee established that plaintiff was immediately aware of the accident, which occurred in front of its property while its contractor was performing work on its behalf, and that it was aware that a person was injured and was removed from the scene in an ambulance. Moreover, plaintiff discussed the accident internally and with others, and was familiar with the insurance policy’s requirement to provide notice of an occurrence “as soon as practicable.” Under the circumstances, plaintiff failed to establish the reasonableness of its belief that no claim would be asserted against it and hence of its seven-month delay in providing notice to Travelers (see SSBSS Realty Corp. v Public Seru. Mut. Ins. Co., 253 AD2d 583, 584 [1998]). We are bound by the holding in Great Canal Realty Corp. v Seneca Ins. Co., Inc. (5 NY3d 742 [2005]) that the insurer need not demonstrate prejudice in a question of late notice, and therefore, the claim is barred by the terms of the policy.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Lippman, P.J., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Catterson and Kavanagh, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 A.D.3d 411, 846 N.Y.S.2d 113, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/st-nicholas-cathedral-of-russian-orthodox-church-in-north-america-v-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack