Opinion
October 30, 1997
Appeal from Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Friedman, J.).
The only relevant pleading in the underlying litigation is the second amended complaint, which supersedes all earlier pleadings ( see, Halmar Distribs. v. Approved Mfg. Corp., 49 A.D.2d 841). We agree with the motion court that, given the plain meaning of the language of the insurance policy ( see, Kansas City Fire Mar. Ins. Co. v. Hartford Ins. Group, 57 N.Y.2d 920), the exclusion applies and that the underlying claims are not covered. Home Ins. Co. v. Spectrum Information Technologies ( 930 F. Supp. 825) is distinguishable and to the extent it could be read to require a different result, we would decline to follow it. The law of the Netherlands Antilles, applicable by reason of a choice-of-law provision, does not differ from the law of this forum ( see, Gangel v. N. DeGroot, PVBA, 41 N.Y.2d 840, 842), and no expert opinion is required to discern the meaning of the foreign statute ( see, Reavis v. Exxon Corp., 90 Misc.2d 980, 990). We do not reach appellants' arguments made for the first time on appeal on the basis of specific pleadings in the prior Federal complaints, since they could have been addressed factually by respondent before the motion court ( see, City of New York v. Stack, 178 A.D.2d 355, lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 753). We have considered appellants' remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Rubin and Tom, JJ.