New York Court of Appeals, 2005

Great Canal Realty Corp. v. Seneca Insurance

New York Court of Appeals · Decided June 16, 2005

5 N.Y.3d 742; 833 N.E.2d 1196; 800 N.Y.S.2d 521; 2005 N.Y. LEXIS 1257

Cases that cite this one

153 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

Eastern Baby Stores, Inc. v. Central Mutual Insurance (2d Cir. 2009)
Eastern Baby Stores, Inc. v. Central Mutual Insurance (2d Cir. 2009)
Mt. Hawley Insurance v. Abraham Little Neck Development Group, Inc. (District Court, E.D. New York 2011)
Homestead Village Assoc., L.P. v. Diamond State Insurance (District Court, E.D. New York 2011)
Same Day Delivery Service, Inc. v. Penn Star Insurance (District Court, S.D. New York 2015)
Cambridge Realty Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance (2d Cir. 2011)
Charter Oak Fire Insurance v. Fleet Building Maintenance, Inc. (District Court, E.D. New York 2009)
Columbia University Press, Inc. v. Travelers Indemnity Co. of America (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
13 State Street LLC v. Acadia Insurance Company (District Court, N.D. New York 2022)
Ramlochan v. Scottsdale Insurance Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
Ponok Realty Corp. v. United National Specialty Insurance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
MingJi Ave4 Realty, LLC v. Colony Insurance Company (District Court, E.D. New York 2025)
Minasian v. IDS Property Casualty Insurance Co. (2d Cir. 2017)
Rockland Exposition, Inc. v. Marshall & Sterling Enterprises, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
Rockland Exposition, Inc. v. Marshall & Sterling Enterprises, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
Integrated Construction Services, Inc. v. Scottsdale Insurance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Gelfman v. Capitol Indemnity Corp. (District Court, E.D. New York 2014)
Indian Harbor Insurance v. City of San Diego (District Court, S.D. New York 2013)
United National Insurance v. 515 Ocean Avenue, LLC (2d Cir. 2012)
Tower Insurance v. Amsterdam Apartments, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
Courduff's Oakwood Road Gardens & Landscaping Co. v. Merchants Mutual Insurance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
25th Avenue v. Delos Insurance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
Tower Insurance v. Alvarado (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
Zimmerman v. Peerless Insurance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
PB Americas Inc. v. Continental Casualty Co. (District Court, S.D. New York 2010)

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 reversed, with costs, defendant’s motion for summary judgment granted and judgment granted declaring that defendant Seneca Insurance Company is not required to defend and indemnify Great Canal Realty Corp. in the underlying action. The certified question should be answered in the negative.

Where a policy of liability insurance requires that notice of an occurrence be given “as soon as practicable,” such notice must be accorded the carrier within a reasonable period of time (see Security Mut. Ins. Co. of N.Y. v Acker-Fitzsimons Corp., 31 NY2d 436, 441 [1972]). The insured’s failure to satisfy the notice requirement constitutes “a failure to comply with a condition precedent which, as a matter of law, vitiates the contract” (Argo Corp. v Greater N.Y. Mut. Ins. Co., 4 NY3d 332, 339 [2005]). Hence, the carrier need not show prejudice before disclaiming based on the insured’s failure to timely notify it of an occurrence (see id.).

We have recognized that there may be circumstances that excuse a failure to give timely notice, such as where the insured has “a good-faith belief of nonliability,” provided that belief is reasonable (Security Mut. Ins. Co., 31 NY2d at 441). But we *744have further explained that “the insured’s belief must be reasonable under all the circumstances, and it may be relevant on the issue of reasonableness, whether and to what extent, the insured has inquired into the circumstances of the accident or occurrence” (id.; see also White v City of New York, 81 NY2d 955, 958 [1993] [stating that, “where a reasonable person could envision liability, that person has a duty to make some inquiry”]). Additionally, the insured bears the burden of establishing the reasonableness of the proffered excuse. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, plaintiff has failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether its delay in giving notice was reasonably founded upon a good-faith belief of nonliability.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order reversed, etc.

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