Anthony Marino Construction Corp. v. INA Underwriters Insurance
Cases that cite this one
36 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Varda, Inc. v. Insurance Co. of North America (District Court, S.D. New York 1988)
- Harris v. Allstate Insurance (District Court, S.D. New York 2000)
- Varda, Inc. v. Insurance Company of North America (2d Cir. 1995)
- U.S.A. Electronics, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. (In re U.S.A. Electronics, Inc.) (United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. New York 1990)
- Fox-Knapp, Inc. v. Employers Mutual Casualty Co. (District Court, S.D. New York 1989)
- Ram Krishana Inc v. Mt Hawley Insurance Co (District Court, S.D. New York 2025)
- Akter v. Interboro Ins. Co. (New York Supreme Court, Bronx County 2024)
- Starikovsky v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (District Court, S.D. New York 2024)
- Akter v. Interboro Ins. Co. (New York Supreme Court, Bronx County 2024)
- Picinich v. New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
- Otsego Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Dinerman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- Weisman v. Mony Life Insurance Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Hunter v. Seneca Insurance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Hunter v. Seneca Insurance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- ALEXANDER, HAROLD v. NEW YORK CENTRAL MUTUAL (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Alexander v. New York Central Mutual (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Alexander v. New York Central Mutual (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Going 2 Extremes, Inc. v. Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Going 2 Extremes, Inc. v. Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Meserole Factory, LLC v. Arch Insurance Group (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- Darvick v. General Accident Insurance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
- Bailey v. Charter Oak Fire Insurance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
- Ingarra v. General Accident/PG Insurance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
- 80 East 116th Street Corp. v. Galaxy Insurance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
- DeRenzis v. Allstate Insurance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
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
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs. Question certified not answered as unnecessary.
Plaintiff’s failure to file sworn proofs of loss within 60 days after receiving a demand to do so by its insurer, accompanied by proof of loss forms, is a complete defense to plaintiff’s action on the insurance policy (Igbara Realty Corp. v New York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assn., 63 NY2d 201, 216; Insurance Law § 3407 [a]). Plaintiff’s contentions that defendants should be estopped from relying on the proof of loss condition because their demand letter did not state the date by which the proofs had to be filed and because it also contained a demand that plaintiff appear for an examination under oath are without merit (Igbara Realty Corp. v New York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assn., supra; see also, Melendez v United States Fire Ins. Co., NYLJ, Jan. 2, 1987, p 15, col 2). Nor does the fact that defendants, through their attorney, examined one of plaintiff’s employees under oath with regard to its claims constitute a waiver of the proof of loss condition (Maleh v New York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assn., 64 NY2d 613, 614). Furthermore, the utilization of the untimely filed proofs of loss at the examination does not constitute a waiver of the condition because defendants’ attorney at that time clearly reserved his right to assert at any time that the proofs were untimely filed. We have examined the rest of plaintiff’s arguments and found them to be without merit.
Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed with costs, in a memorandum. Question certified not answered as unnecessary. Motion by Anthony Marino Construction Corp. for leave to appear amicus curiae denied.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.