Opinion
August 13, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Friedman, J.).
The subject insurance policy's notice of claim condition precedent to coverage, that "the insured shall immediately forward to the [insurer] every demand, notice, summons or other process received by him or his representative", is devoid of ambiguity (see, Hovdestad v. Interboro Mut. Indem. Ins. Co., 135 A.D.2d 783, 784), and the receipt of service of the summons and complaint by the Secretary of State, as plaintiff's designated agent, constituted receipt by a representative within the meaning of the policy. The fact that plaintiff itself did not actually receive a copy, due solely to its own failure to notify the Secretary of State of a change in address of its representative to whom the Secretary was authorized to forward process, does not excuse its noncompliance with the notice requirement of the policy (see, Cedeno v. Wimbledon Bldg. Corp., 207 A.D.2d 297, 298, lv dismissed 84 N.Y.2d 978; FGB Realty Advisors v. Norm-Rick Realty Corp., 227 A.D.2d 439)
Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.