From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Levin v. G.T.J. Co., Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 16, 2003
306 A.D.2d 385 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2002-09173

Argued May 27, 2003.

June 16, 2003.

In an action for a judgment declaring that the plaintiff is not obligated to defend and indemnify the defendant G.T.J. Co., Inc., a/k/a Varsity Transit, Inc., in an underlying action entitled Rodriguez v. G.T.J. Co., a/k/a Varsity Transit, pending in the Supreme Court, Kings County, under Index No. 34506/94, the defendant G.T.J. Co., Inc., a/k/a Varsity Transit, Inc., appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Schmidt, J.), entered September 18, 2002, which granted the plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment and declared that the plaintiff is not obligated to defend and indemnify it in the underlying action.

Ruskin Moscou Faltischek, P.C., Uniondale, N.Y. (Lauren M. Gray of counsel), for appellant.

Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker Sauer, Mineola, N.Y. (Norman H. Dachs and Jonathan A. Dachs of counsel), for respondent.

Before: NANCY E. SMITH, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment and declared that it is not obligated to defend and indemnify the appellant in the underlying action. It is uncontroverted that the act which constituted the basis of the underlying action did not occur on a date encompassed by the subject insurance policy. Since no coverage was created in the first instance, the timely disclaimer provisions of the Insurance Law are inapplicable (see CGU Ins. v. Guadagno, 280 A.D.2d 509, 510; cf. Matter of Worcester Ins. Co. v. Bettenhauser, 95 N.Y.2d 185, 188; Insurance Law § 3420[d]). Further, the plaintiff, which issued a reservation of its right to withdraw upon first discovering that the date of the accident in the underlying action may fall outside the coverage dates of the subject policy, was not estopped from asserting the lack of coverage (see CGU Ins. v. Guadagno, supra; cf. Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v. 215 W. 91st St. Corp., 283 A.D.2d 421, 422-423).

SMITH, J.P., KRAUSMAN, LUCIANO and CRANE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Levin v. G.T.J. Co., Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 16, 2003
306 A.D.2d 385 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Levin v. G.T.J. Co., Inc.

Case Details

Full title:NEIL T. LEVIN, ETC., respondent, v. G.T.J. CO., INC., a/k/a VARSITY…

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

Date published: Jun 16, 2003

Citations

306 A.D.2d 385 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
760 N.Y.S.2d 868