Sterling National Bank v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of America

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sterling National Bank v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of America

93 A.D.3d 543, 939 N.Y.S.2d 858

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

DecidedMarch 20, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 93 A.D.3d 543 (Sterling National Bank v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of America) 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

Sterling National Bank v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of America, 93 A.D.3d 543, 939 N.Y.S.2d 858 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered March 15, 2011, dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeals from orders, same court and Justice, entered December 7, 2010, which denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, and granted defendant’s motion for summery judgment, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

By letter dated May 9, 2002, plaintiff’s general counsel gave defendant notice of the discovery of a loss under the subject bond. Plaintiff commenced this action on May 21, 2004. Since the action was not commenced within two years after the discovery of the loss, as required by the bond, it was untimely.

Contrary to plaintiffs contention, the June 2003 letter agreement between the parties did not toll the contractual limitations period. It contains no language tolling or extending the two-year time period. Nor did plaintiff offer any evidence of bad faith behavior on defendant’s part to support its estoppel argument.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Ren wick, Richter and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered March 15, 2011, dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeals from orders, same court and Justice, entered December 7, 2010, which denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, and granted defendant’s motion for summery judgment, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

By letter dated May 9, 2002, plaintiff’s general counsel gave defendant notice of the discovery of a loss under the subject bond. Plaintiff commenced this action on May 21, 2004. Since the action was not commenced within two years after the discovery of the loss, as required by the bond, it was untimely.

Contrary to plaintiffs contention, the June 2003 letter agreement between the parties did not toll the contractual limitations period. It contains no language tolling or extending the two-year time period. Nor did plaintiff offer any evidence of bad faith behavior on defendant’s part to support its estoppel argument.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Ren wick, Richter and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

93 A.D.3d 543, 939 N.Y.S.2d 858, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sterling-national-bank-v-travelers-casualty-surety-co-of-america-nyappdiv-2012.