Opinion
CA 02-01325
December 30, 2002.
Appeal from a judgment (denominated order) of Supreme Court, Erie County (Notaro, J.), entered April 25, 2002, which, inter alia, granted the cross motion of plaintiff to the extent of declaring that defendant New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company is obligated to defend her in the underlying action.
BURGIO, KITA CURVIN, BUFFALO (STEVEN P. CURVIN OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
DOBOZIN DANZIGER, BUFFALO (JACK DANZIGER OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: PINE, J.P., WISNER, SCUDDER, KEHOE, AND BURNS, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum:
Supreme Court properly denied the motion of defendant New York Central Mutual Insurance Company (New York Central) seeking summary judgment declaring that it has no obligation to defend or indemnify plaintiff in the underlying action and granted the cross motion of plaintiff to the extent of declaring that New York Central is obligated to defend her in the underlying action. Contrary to New York Central's contention, plaintiff's delay in giving notice of the incident did not vitiate the insurance policy issued by New York Central to plaintiff ( see Zugnoni v. Travelers Ins. Cos., 179 A.D.2d 1033, 1033-1034). We have examined New York Central's remaining contention and conclude that it lacks merit ( see Gilberg v. Barbieri, 53 N.Y.2d 285, 293-294; Sullivan v. Breese, 160 A.D.2d 997, 998-999; cf. Grayes v. DiStasio, 166 A.D.2d 261, 262-263).