Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004

Randazzo v. Gerber Life Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided January 12, 2004

3 A.D.3d 485; 769 N.Y.S.2d 753

Cases that cite this one

7 later published cases cite this decision.

Ralex Services, Inc. v. Southwest Marine & General Insurance Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
GuideOne Specialty Insurance v. Admiral Insurance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
Fontana v. Champion Mortgage Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Dougherty v. William Penn Life Insurance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
Topel v. Reliastar Life Insurance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
Goldman v. Metropolitan Life Insurance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
Katz v. American Mayflower Life Insurance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)

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 to recover damages for a violation of General Business Law § 349, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and unjust enrichment, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Lefkowitz, J), entered October 15, 2002, which granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CFLR 3211 (a) (1) to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Fursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1), dismissal of the complaint is warranted where the documentary evidence resolves all factual issues as a matter of law and definitively disposes of the asserted claims (see Bank v Lake, 284 AD2d 355 [2001]; Roth v Goldman, 254 AD2d 405 [1998]; Gephardt v Morgan Guar. Trust *486Co. of N.Y., 191 AD2d 229 [1993]). In the instant case, the plaintiff alleges that the subject insurance policy did not properly disclose that there would be a period of days, weeks, or months during which no coverage existed. However, the policy clearly states when coverage is to begin and when premiums are due. Thus, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint.

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Smith, J.P., Luciano, H. Miller and Townes, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.