Opinion
April 5, 1999
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCarty, J.).
Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The Supreme Court correctly declared that the respondent insurer is not obligated to defend and indemnify the appellant law firm against the legal malpractice claims asserted by the plaintiff. The appellant first received notice of the plaintiff's claims after the expiration of the "claims-made" policy written by the respondent, although within the 60-day extended reporting period following termination thereof ( see, 11 NYCRR 73.3 [e] [3] [i]). However, the appellant failed to notify the respondent until approximately seven months later, as it instead referred the claim to a different insurer from which it believed it had purchased successor primary malpractice liability coverage. It was only after the other insurer determined that its coverage was secondary to that of the respondent that the appellant notified the respondent of the plaintiff's malpractice claims, which by that time were in litigation. The appellant's failure to report the claim to the respondent within the policy period of the claims-made policy or within the attendant 60 day extended-reporting period causes this claim to fall outside the scope of the claims-made policy ( see, Camalloy Wire v. National Union Ins. Co., 235 A.D.2d 202; Hunt v. Galaxy Ins. Co., 223 A.D.2d 821; see also, Chas T. Main, Inc. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 406 Mass. 862, 551 N.E.2d 28).
The appellants' remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review and may not be raised for the first time on appeal ( see, Dufficy v. Wharf Bar Grill, 217 A.D.2d 646), or are without merit ( see, e.g., Zappone v. Home Ins. Co., 55 N.Y.2d 131; Keith Props. v. Hubinette Cowell Assocs., 243 A.D.2d 663; McCleavey v. Physicians Reciprocal Insurers, 232 A.D.2d 381; Hunt v. Galaxy Ins. Co., supra).
S. Miller, J. P., Ritter, Florio and Luciano, JJ., concur.