From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Marine v. Federal Insurance Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 29, 2002
293 A.D.2d 721 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Summary

granting summary judgment for claims asserted against defendant employers under Section 296 where defendants “acted appropriately when confronted with [plaintiff's] complaints of sexual and religious harassment” and there was “no evidence that the defendants encouraged, condoned, or approved the alleged conduct.”

Summary of this case from Romero v. City of N.Y.

Opinion

2001-10721

Submitted March 22, 2002.

April 29, 2002.

In an action to recover on an insurance policy pursuant to Insurance Law § 3420, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golar, J.), dated November 30, 2001, which granted the defendant's motion to vacate a judgment entered against it upon its default in answering and to dismiss the complaint.

Jose R. Mendez, P.C., Rego Park, N.Y., for appellant.

Curtis, Vasile, Devine McElhenny, Merrick, N.Y. (Roy W. Vasile and Patricia M. D'Antone of counsel), for respondent.

Before: MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P., LEO F. McGINITY, SANDRA L. TOWNES, STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.


ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the defendant's motion which was to vacate the judgment entered against it upon its default in answering. To obtain relief pursuant to CPLR 317, the defendant was required to establish that it did not personally receive notice of the summons in time to defend and that it has a meritorious defense (see Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v. A.C. Dutton Lbr., 67 N.Y.2d 138). The plaintiff effected service upon the defendant in November 2000 by serving a copy of the summons and complaint upon the Superintendent of Insurance (see Insurance Law § 1212). The defendant established that it did not receive actual notice of the summons in time to defend (cf. Nicolosi v. Sleuth Sec. Sys., 247 A.D.2d 521).

Further, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint, as the plaintiff failed to demonstrate compliance with the service requirement of Insurance Law § 3420.

ALTMAN, J.P., McGINITY, TOWNES and CRANE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Marine v. Federal Insurance Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 29, 2002
293 A.D.2d 721 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

granting summary judgment for claims asserted against defendant employers under Section 296 where defendants “acted appropriately when confronted with [plaintiff's] complaints of sexual and religious harassment” and there was “no evidence that the defendants encouraged, condoned, or approved the alleged conduct.”

Summary of this case from Romero v. City of N.Y.
Case details for

Marine v. Federal Insurance Co.

Case Details

Full title:MILADY MARINE, appellant, v. FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, respondent

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

Date published: Apr 29, 2002

Citations

293 A.D.2d 721 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
741 N.Y.S.2d 427

Citing Cases

Thakurdyal v. 341 Scholes

Unlike a motion to vacate under CPLR 5015 (a) (1), it is unnecessary for a defendant seeking relief under…

Romero v. City of N.Y.

It is only after an employer knows or should have known of improper discriminatory conduct that it can…