Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001

City of New York v. Northern Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided June 4, 2001

284 A.D.2d 291; 725 N.Y.S.2d 374; 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5650

Cases that cite this one

17 later published cases cite this decision.

Crescent Beach Club LLC v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company (District Court, E.D. New York 2020)
New York University v. First Financial Insurance Company (1st Cir. 2003)
New York University v. First Financial Insurance (2d Cir. 2003)
George Campbell Painting v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, PA (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Midvale Indemnity Co. v. Zuniga (2d Cir. 2026)
AVR-Powell C Dev. Corp. v. Utica First Ins. Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
Endurance American Specialty Insurance v. Utica First Insurance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Fish King Enterprises v. Countrywide Insurance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
Guideone Specialty Mutual Insurance v. Congregation Adas Yereim (District Court, E.D. New York 2009)
City of New York v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
79th Realty Co. v. Wausau Insurance Companies (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
Lake Carmel Fire Dept., Inc. v. Utica First Ins. Co. (New York Supreme Court, Queens County 2004)
Uptown Whole Foods, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
Varella v. American Transit Insurance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
West 16th Street Tenants Corp. v. Public Service Mutual Insurance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
McGinnis v. Mandracchia (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
City of New York v. Investors Insurance Co. of America (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

—In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the defendant is obligated to defend and indemnify *292the plaintiff in an underlying personal injury action entitled Caldas v City of New York pending in the Supreme Court, New York County, under Index No. 127092/94, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bruno, J.), dated March 27, 2000, as denied its motion for summary judgment, and the defendant cross-appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of the same order as denied its cross motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, the motion is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Bangs County, for the entry of a judgment declaring that the defendant is obligated to defend and, if necessary, indemnify the plaintiff and reimburse the plaintiff for all past defense costs in the underlying personal injury action; and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as cross-appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that the plaintiff is awarded by one bill of costs.

The plaintiff, the City of New York (hereinafter the City), as an additional insured of the defendant, Northern Insurance Company of New York (hereinafter Northern), made a claim under the insurance policy at issue. The City’s notice showed that it was aware of the occurrence for over 16 months before notifying Northern, and the City offered no excuse for the failure to notify Northern earlier. As a result, Northern disclaimed coverage.

However, Northern’s two-month delay in disclaiming coverage was unreasonable as a matter of law, as the ground for the disclaimer was obvious on the face of the City’s notice of claim. Northern’s attempt to justify its delay in disclaiming coverage on the ground that it had to investigate whether the City was an additional insured is, in this instance, an insufficient excuse as a matter of law, as such an investigation was unrelated to the reason for the disclaimer and could have been asserted at any time. Thus, the City should have been granted summary judgment (see, Mount Vernon Fire Ins. Co. v Gatesington Equities, 204 AD2d 419; cf., 2540 Assocs. v Assicurazioni Generali, 271 AD2d 282; see also, Zappone v Home Ins. Co., 55 NY2d 131).

Since this is an action for a declaratory judgment, the matter is remitted for the entry of a judgment declaring that Northern is obligated to defend and, if necessary, indemnify the City and to reimburse it for all past defense costs in the underlying personal injury action (see, Lanza v Wagner, 11 NY2d 317, 334, appeal dismissed 371 US 74, cert denied 371 US 901).

*293The parties’ remaining contentions are either without merit or need not be reached in light of this determination. Altman, J. P., Florio, Schmidt and Smith, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.