Opinion
December 12, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O'Brien, J.).
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as it is asserted against the appellant, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.
We find that the Supreme Court erred in denying the appellant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against it. The appellant demonstrated its entitlement to summary judgment by submitting evidence that the suit was brought beyond the one-year limitation period as provided in the insurance policy.
Additionally, the plaintiff's contention that the appellant had waived the time limitation by its own delay in investigating the claim is meritless. Delay by the insurance carrier in completing its investigation of the claim does not excuse the plaintiff from timely commencing an action, since he or she is bound by the terms of the contract to either commence an action prior to the expiration of the limitations period or obtain a waiver or extension of such provision (see, Blitman Constr. Corp. v Insurance Co., 66 N.Y.2d 820, 822; Meyers, Smith Granady v New York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assn., 201 A.D.2d 312, 313; Carat Diamond Corp. v Underwriters at Lloyd's, 123 A.D.2d 544, 547; Fotochrome, Inc. v American Ins. Co., 26 A.D.2d 634, affd 23 N.Y.2d 889). The plaintiff's contention is especially meritless in light of the evidence that his failure to supply the appellant with executed transcripts of his examination under oath caused substantial delay in the appellant's investigation of the claim (see, Meyers, Smith Granady v New York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assn., supra; Carat Diamond Corp. v Underwriters at Lloyd's, supra). Mangano, P.J., Lawrence, Copertino, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.