St. Vincent's Hospital & Medical Center v. Allstate Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

St. Vincent's Hospital & Medical Center v. Allstate Insurance

69 A.D.3d 923, 893 N.Y.2d 589

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

DecidedJanuary 26, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 69 A.D.3d 923 (St. Vincent's Hospital & Medical Center v. Allstate 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. Vincent's Hospital & Medical Center v. Allstate Insurance, 69 A.D.3d 923, 893 N.Y.2d 589 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

In support of its cross motion, the defendant made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the accident in which the plaintiff’s assignor was injured was not an insured incident (see Central Gen. Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 90 NY2d 195, 199 [1997]; see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). In opposition to the defendant’s prima facie showing, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the defense of lack of coverage is not precluded by [924]*924the defendant’s failure to pay or deny the subject no-fault claim within the requisite 30-day period (see Hospital for Joint Diseases v Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co., 9 NY3d 312, 318 [2007]; Central Gen. Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins. Co., 90 NY2d at 199).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the complaint, and granted the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.R, Dillon, Miller and Roman, JJ., concur.

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

In support of its cross motion, the defendant made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the accident in which the plaintiff’s assignor was injured was not an insured incident (see Central Gen. Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 90 NY2d 195, 199 [1997]; see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). In opposition to the defendant’s prima facie showing, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the defense of lack of coverage is not precluded by [924]*924the defendant’s failure to pay or deny the subject no-fault claim within the requisite 30-day period (see Hospital for Joint Diseases v Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co., 9 NY3d 312, 318 [2007]; Central Gen. Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins. Co., 90 NY2d at 199).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the complaint, and granted the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.R, Dillon, Miller and Roman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 A.D.3d 923, 893 N.Y.2d 589, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/st-vincents-hospital-medical-center-v-allstate-insurance-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack