From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Duarte v. State Farm Insurance Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 17, 2001
289 A.D.2d 367 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

2001-03395

Submitted November 28, 2001.

December 17, 2001.

In an action for a judgment declaring, in effect, that the defendant is obligated to defend and indemnify George Noriega and Carmen Noriega in an underlying action entitled Duarte v. Nunez, pending in the Supreme Court, Queens County, under Index No. 18249/96, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Thomas, J.), dated March 12, 2001, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Michael A. Cervini, Jackson Heights, N.Y. (Robin Mary Heaney of counsel), for appellants.

Curtis, Vasile, Devine McElhenny, Merrick, N.Y. (Robert E. Schleier, Jr., of counsel), for respondent.

Before: GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, J.P., DANIEL F. LUCIANO, NANCY E. SMITH, THOMAS A. ADAMS, A. GAIL PRUDENTI, JJ.


ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for the entry of a judgment declaring that the defendant is not obligated to defend and indemnify George Noriega and Carmen Noriega in the underlying action.

"The insurer bears the burden of proving that the facts alleged in the complaint do not fit within the range of the policy's coverage" (County of Columbia v. Continental Ins. Co., 83 N.Y.2d 618, 627). Here, the defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law based on the clear and unambiguous language in the policy excluding coverage for the incident at issue in the underlying action (see, U.S. Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Val-Blue Corp., 85 N.Y.2d 821; Masterpol, Inc. v. Travelers Ins. Co., 273 A.D.2d 817). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to come forward with sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of fact. Thus, the defendant was properly granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

We note that since this is a declaratory judgment action, the Supreme Court should have directed the entry of a declaration in favor of the defendant (see, Lanza v. Wagner, 11 N.Y.2d 317, 334, appeal dismissed 371 U.S. 74, cert denied 371 U.S. 901).

KRAUSMAN, J.P., LUCIANO, SMITH, ADAMS and PRUDENTI, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Duarte v. State Farm Insurance Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 17, 2001
289 A.D.2d 367 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Duarte v. State Farm Insurance Company

Case Details

Full title:JUAN PABLO DUARTE, et al., appellants, v. STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Dec 17, 2001

Citations

289 A.D.2d 367 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
734 N.Y.S.2d 884