Opinion
15454 Index No. 160190/19 Case No. 2021–02948
03-08-2022
WESCO INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. HI–RISE STEEL INC. et al., Defendants–Respondents, Samuel Sainplice, Defendant–Appellant.
Elefterakis Elefterakis & Panek, New York (Gennaro Savastano of counsel), for appellant. Kennedys CMK LLP, New York (Max W. Gershweir of counsel), for Hi–Rise Steel Inc., Amram Tuizer and John Doe, respondents.
Elefterakis Elefterakis & Panek, New York (Gennaro Savastano of counsel), for appellant.
Kennedys CMK LLP, New York (Max W. Gershweir of counsel), for Hi–Rise Steel Inc., Amram Tuizer and John Doe, respondents.
Kapnick, J.P., Gesmer, Oing, Singh, Scarpulla, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Jaffe, J.), entered on or about February 8, 2021, which, to the extent appealed from, granted plaintiff Wesco Insurance Company's motion for summary judgment declaring that it has no duty to defend or indemnify Hi–Rise Steel Inc. or Amram Tuizer in the underlying personal injury action commenced by Samuel Sainplice, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Sainplice's contention that the affidavit submitted by Wesco was not properly notarized by a notary public's stamped or printed signature is meritless (see Executive Law § 137 ). The key requisite of a signature is intent; thus, printed and typewritten signatures have been upheld as valid (see General Construction Law § 46 ; Brooklyn City R.R. Co. v. City of New York, 139 Misc. 691, 691–692, 248 N.Y.S. 196 [App. Term, 2d Dept. 1930] ; Parkhill v. Cleary, 305 A.D.2d 1088, 1089, 759 N.Y.S.2d 262 [4th Dept. 2003] ). Sainplice's challenge to the authenticity of the documentary evidence submitted on the summary judgment motion is likewise meritless. A party may properly authenticate evidence through any person claiming personal knowledge, including its agent (see U.S. Bank N.A. v. Hossain, 177 A.D.3d 547, 548, 112 N.Y.S.3d 729 [1st Dept. 2019] ). Thus, the affidavit of the vice president of Wesco's general managing agent sufficiently authenticated the Wesco policy, as he averred that he was fully familiar with the facts and circumstances provided in his affidavit and through his review of the records maintained in the ordinary course of the managing agent's business (see Commissioners of the State Ins. Fund v. Sanitation Salvage Corp., 187 A.D.3d 537, 537, 130 N.Y.S.3d 665 [1st Dept. 2020] ).
Wesco was not estopped from denying coverage based on its disclaimer for failure to comply with the policy's cooperation clause. Defendants were not named insureds and thus coverage, which did not otherwise exist, could not have been created by estoppel (see Matter of U.S. Specialty Ins. Co. v. Navarro, 169 A.D.3d 415, 416, 93 N.Y.S.3d 35 [1st Dept. 2019], lv denied 34 N.Y.3d 903, 2019 WL 5559059 [2019] ). Based on admissible evidence, and the fact that Wesco was not estopped from denying coverage, the court properly found that neither Hi–Rise Steel nor Tuizer qualified as insureds under the Wesco policy, which identified only Hi–Rise Supply Corp. and HR Steel Inc. as named insureds.