Burlington Insurance v. Casur Corp.
Cases that cite this one
12 later published cases cite this decision.
- Paul v. Village of Quogue (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- Greenidge v. City of New York (New York Supreme Court, New York County 2024)
- Turnwood Assoc., LLC v. Sutton Hay Day, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
- American Empire Surplus Lines Insurance Company v. B & B Iron Works Corporation (District Court, E.D. New York 2021)
- 76 Port Richmond Ave. Corp. v. Port Richmond Realty Assoc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- Burlington Ins. Co. v. Pinnacle Demolition & Envtl. Servs. Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- Merritt Constr., Inc. v. Town of Kent (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- Burlington Insurance Co. v. Clearview Maintenance & Services, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Haidhaqi v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Mazzei v. Kyriacou (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- Reynolds v. Avon Grove Properties (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Jannetti v. Whelan (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
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
In an action to recover unpaid insurance premiums, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brown, J.), entered May 14, 2014, which denied its motion for summary judgment on the complaint.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the complaint is granted.
The plaintiff insurer established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the complaint by submitting the subject insurance policy, the audit statement, and the affidavit of the plaintiffs accounts receivable and collections manager. These submissions demonstrated that, pursuant to an audit and revised audit, which were conducted after expiration of the policy in accordance with the terms of the policy, the defendant owed an additional $134,550 in premiums (see Evanston Ins. Co. v Po Wing Hong Food Mkt., Inc., 21 AD3d 333 [2005]; cf. Essex Ins. Co. v Laruccia Constr., Inc., 71 AD3d 818 [2010]; Safeguard Ins. Co. v Tetz & Sons, 271 AD2d 516 [2000]). In opposition, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact.
To the extent that the defendant argues that the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment was premature, this contention is without merit. A party contending that a motion for summary judgment is premature is required to demonstrate that *966 additional discovery might lead to relevant evidence or that the facts essential to oppose the motion are exclusively within the knowledge and control of the movant (see CPLR 3212 [f]; Singh v Avis Rent A Car Sys., Inc., 119 AD3d 768 [2014]; Williams v Spencer-Hall, 113 AD3d 759 [2014]). “The mere hope or speculation that evidence sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment may be uncovered during the discovery process is insufficient to deny the motion” (Lopez v WS Distrib., Inc., 34 AD3d 759, 760 [2006]; see Williams v Spencer-Hall, 113 AD3d 759 [2014]; Rungoo v Leary, 110 AD3d 781 [2013]). Here, the defendant failed to indicate what evidence discovery may uncover, in addition to what has already been produced.
The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the complaint.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.