Suffolk Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't v. Sumitomo Marine & Fire Ins. Co.

Full title: Suffolk County Sheriff's Department, et al., respondents, v. Sumitomo…

Court: SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Date published: Apr 22, 2015

127 A.D.3d 1068 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)

2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 3348

5 N.Y.S.3d 892

Opinion

2013-05987 Index No. 20624/12

04-22-2015

Suffolk County Sheriff's Department, et al., respondents, v. Sumitomo Marine and Fire Insurance Company of America, appellant.

Ford Marrin Esposito Witmeyer & Gleser, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Charles A. Booth, Catherine B. Altier, and Amy P. Klie of counsel and Robert S. Marshall, pro hac vice, of counsel), for appellant. Dennis M. Brown, County Attorney, Hauppauge, N.Y. (Christopher A. Jeffreys of counsel), for respondents.

PETER B. SKELOS, J.P.

JOHN M. LEVENTHAL

JEFFREY A. COHEN

COLLEEN D. DUFFY, JJ.

Ford Marrin Esposito Witmeyer & Gleser, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Charles A. Booth, Catherine B. Altier, and Amy P. Klie of counsel and Robert S. Marshall, pro hac vice, of counsel), for appellant.

Dennis M. Brown, County Attorney, Hauppauge, N.Y. (Christopher A. Jeffreys of counsel), for respondents.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action for a judgment declaring, inter alia, that the defendant is obligated to defend and indemnify the plaintiffs in an underlying personal injury action entitled Williams v Suffolk County Sheriff's Department, pending in the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, under Index No. 30751/03, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mayer, J.), dated April 9, 2013, as granted the plaintiffs' cross motion for summary judgment to the extent of determining that the defendant is obligated to defend Island Elevator Corporation in the underlying action and to indemnify the plaintiffs and Island Elevator Corporation in the underlying action, and denied its cross motion for a declaration that it was not obligated to defend or indemnify Island Elevator Corporation or the plaintiffs in the underlying action.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiffs satisfied their prima facie burden of demonstrating their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320) as to the untimeliness of the defendant's disclaimers. In opposition, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see 474431 Assoc. v AXA Global Risks US Ins. Co., 18 AD3d 604).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.

SKELOS, J.P., LEVENTHAL, COHEN and DUFFY, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court