Additionally, it is undisputed that Oquendo conducted no independent investigation into Umer's accident nor did he take any photographs at the scene of the accident. Thus, the superintendent, whose knowledge is imputed to plaintiffs (see Tower Ins. of N.Y. v Amsterdam Apts., LLC, 82 AD3d 465 [1st Dept 2011]), could not have had a good faith belief in non-liability without conducting a more thorough inquiry into the matter (see 310 East 74 LLC v Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 106 AD3d 469 [1st Dept 2013]; Tower Ins. Co. of N.Y. v Red Rose Rest., Inc., 77 AD3d 453 [1st Dept 2010]; Anglero v George Units, LLC, 61 AD3d 564 [1st Dept 2009]).
Additionally, it is undisputed that Oquendo conducted no independent investigation into Umer's accident nor did he take any photographs at the scene of the accident. Thus, the superintendent, whose knowledge is imputed to plaintiffs (see Tower Ins. of N.Y. v Amsterdam Apts., LLC, 82 AD3d 465 [1st Dept 2011]), could not have had a good faith belief in non-liability without conducting a more thorough inquiry into the matter (see 310 East 74 LLC v Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 106 AD3d 469 [1st Dept 2013]; Tower Ins. Co. of N.Y. v Red Rose Rest., Inc., 77 AD3d 453 [1st Dept 2010]; Anglero v George Units, LLC, 61 AD3d 564 [1st Dept 2009]).
See An Act to Amend the Civil Practice Law and Rules and the Insurance Law, in Relation to Liability Insurance Policies § 8, 2008 N.Y. Sess. Laws 388 (McKinney 2008). New York courts continue to apply the no-prejudice rule to primary insurance policies issued before that date. See, e.g., 310 East 74 LLC v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 964 N.Y.S.2d 512, 513-14 (1st Dep't 2 013); Tower Ins. Co. of New York v. Classon Heights, LLC, 920 N.Y.S.2d 58, 62 (1st Dep't 2011). In both New York and California, the burden of proving such prejudice is placed on the reinsurer.
Plaintiff failed to establish prima facie that its failure to give timely notice of the occurrence to Technology should be excused on the ground that it had a reasonable belief in non-liability (see Security Mut. Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Acker–Fitzsimons Corp., 31 N.Y.2d 436 [1972] ; SSBSS Realty Corp. v. Public Serv. Mut. Ins. Co., 253 A.D.2d 583, 677 N.Y.S.2d 136 [1st Dept.1998] ). The record demonstrates that plaintiff unreasonably failed to keep itself informed of potential claims for damages arising from the incident (see e.g. 310 E. 74 LLC v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 106 A.D.3d 469, 964 N.Y.S.2d 512 [1st Dept.2013] ; Tower Ins. of N.Y. v. Amsterdam Apts., LLC, 82 A.D.3d 465, 918 N.Y.S.2d 106 [1st Dept.2011] ). Further, Technology was not required to show that it was prejudiced as a result of plaintiff's late notice, because the subject policy was issued before Insurance Law § 3420 was amended to provide that an insurer could disclaim coverage based on untimely notice only if it was prejudiced by the untimely notice (see id. § 3420[5] ).