Opinion
2011-12-13
FINE LINE BUILDERS & REMODELERS, INC., appellant, v. ATLANTIC CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, respondent.
Barr Post & Associates, PLLC, Spring Valley, N.Y. (Craig A. Post of counsel), for appellant. Milber, Makris, Plousadis & Seiden, LLP, Woodbury, N.Y. (Lorin A. Donnelly of counsel), for respondent.
Barr Post & Associates, PLLC, Spring Valley, N.Y. (Craig A. Post of counsel), for appellant. Milber, Makris, Plousadis & Seiden, LLP, Woodbury, N.Y. (Lorin A. Donnelly of counsel), for respondent.
In an action for a judgment declaring that the defendant is obligated to defend and indemnify the plaintiff in an underlying action entitled Shortell v. Swanson Consulting, Inc., commenced in the Supreme Court, Rockland County, under Index No. 5964/07, the plaintiff appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Walsh II, J.), dated August 20, 2010, which denied its motion for summary judgment on the complaint, granted the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment, and declared that the defendant is not obligated to defend and indemnify it in the underlying action.
ORDERED that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The defendant, Atlantic Casualty Insurance Company (hereinafter Atlantic), established, prima facie, its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by showing that it properly disclaimed coverage on the ground of late notice of the underlying accident ( see Ciampa 21, LLC v. QBE Ins. Corp., 81 A.D.3d 586, 915 N.Y.S.2d 871; Lobosco v. Best Buy, Inc., 80 A.D.3d 728, 915 N.Y.S.2d 305; Bigman Bros., Inc. v. QBE Ins. Corp., 73 A.D.3d 1110, 1112, 904 N.Y.S.2d 439; Sputnik Rest. Corp. v. United Nat. Ins. Co., 62 A.D.3d 689, 878 N.Y.S.2d 428; St. James Mech., Inc. v. Royal & Sunalliance, 44 A.D.3d 1030, 1032, 845 N.Y.S.2d 83; Felix v. Pinewood Bldrs., Inc., 30 A.D.3d 459, 818 N.Y.S.2d 119; Jordan Constr. Prods. Corp. v Travelers Indem. Co. of Am., 14 A.D.3d 655, 789 N.Y.S.2d 298). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact ( see Bigman Bros., Inc. v. QBE Ins. Corp., 73 A.D.3d at 1112, 904 N.Y.S.2d 439; Sputnik Rest. Corp. v. United Natl. Ins. Co., 62 A.D.3d 689, 878 N.Y.S.2d 428). The plaintiff's claim that it had a reasonable, good faith belief in nonliability was belied by its failure to inquire into the circumstances of the accident at issue in the underlying action ( see Great Canal Realty Corp. v. Seneca Ins. Co., Inc., 5 N.Y.3d 742, 743, 800 N.Y.S.2d 521, 833 N.E.2d 1196; Security Mut. Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Acker–Fitzsimons Corp., 31 N.Y.2d 436, 441, 340 N.Y.S.2d 902, 293 N.E.2d 76; Hanson v. Turner Constr. Co., 70 A.D.3d 641, 897 N.Y.S.2d 116; York Specialty Food, Inc. v. Towers Ins. Co. of N.Y., 47 A.D.3d 589, 590, 850 N.Y.S.2d 409; St. Nicholas Cathedral of Russian Orthodox Church in N. Am. v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co., 45 A.D.3d 411, 846 N.Y.S.2d 113; Felix v. Pinewood Bldrs., Inc., 30 A.D.3d at 461, 818 N.Y.S.2d 119). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted Atlantic's cross motion for summary judgment and, for the same reason, properly denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment ( see Zimmerman v. Peerless Ins. Co., 85 A.D.3d 1021, 926 N.Y.S.2d 124; Magistro v. Buttered Bagel, Inc., 79 A.D.3d 822, 914 N.Y.S.2d 192; Hanson v. Turner Constr. Co., 70 A.D.3d 641, 897 N.Y.S.2d 116).