Westchester Medical Center v. Government Employees Insurance
Opinion of the Court
Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the respondent, in opposition to the appellant’s prima facie showing, failed to raise a triable issue of fact.
The respondent’s contention that there was a complete absence of coverage that could be asserted as a basis for disclaimer notwithstanding its failure to comply with the 30-day rule set forth in Insurance Law § 5106 (a) and 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 (c) (see generally Fair Price Med. Supply Corp. v Travelers Indem. Co., 10 NY3d 556 [2008]; Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y. v Maryland Cas. Co., 90 NY2d 274 [1997]; Central Gen. Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 90 NY2d 195 [1997]; Zappone v Home Ins. Co., 55 NY2d 131 [1982]), is improperly raised for the first time on appeal, and, therefore, is not properly before this Court.
In light of our determination, we need not reach the plaintiff’s remaining contentions. Mastro, J.P., Dickerson, Sgroi and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.