From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Caramanica v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 29, 1985
110 A.D.2d 869 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Opinion

April 29, 1985

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Molloy, J.).


Order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with one bill of costs, cross motion granted, and complaint dismissed.

Special Term erred in holding that appellant's moving papers were insufficient to grant its cross motion for summary judgment. While an affirmation by an attorney who does not have personal knowledge of the essential facts is insufficient ( David Graubart, Inc. v. Bank Leumi Trust Co., 48 N.Y.2d 554), in this case the cross motion was based on the affirmation of an attorney with personal knowledge of the facts. The cross motion was based on the contentions that appellant's attorneys had asked plaintiff to submit to an examination under oath pursuant to the parties' standard fire insurance contract and that plaintiff had failed to do so ( see, Insurance Law § 3404 [e], lines 113-117, 157-160, formerly Insurance Law § 168 [5]). An associate of the very firm which sought this examination under oath affirmed that plaintiff had never submitted to it. Here, it was the attorneys, rather than the party, that had first-hand knowledge of the pertinent information. The letter requesting the examination was annexed as an exhibit to the affirmation and is sufficient to make a prima facie showing that the request had been made ( see, Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 563).

Respondents have presented nothing other than conjecture and conclusory assertions insufficient to raise any genuine issue of fact in opposition to the cross motion. Plaintiff did not deny knowledge that the examination was requested. Since plaintiff offered "no suggestion of a reason for noncompliance" ( Lentini Bros. Moving Stor. Co. v. New York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assn., 53 N.Y.2d 835, 837) after the passage of nearly four years, defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been granted ( Bulzomi v. New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 92 A.D.2d 878). O'Connor, J.P., Weinstein, Brown and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Caramanica v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 29, 1985
110 A.D.2d 869 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)
Case details for

Caramanica v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co.

Case Details

Full title:JOHN A. CARAMANICA, Respondent, and FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Apr 29, 1985

Citations

110 A.D.2d 869 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Citing Cases

Werdein v. Johnson

Further, there is no evidence in admissible form that supports summary judgment in favor of defendants (see,…

Rosenthal v. Prudential Property Cas. Co.

When the insured's failure to fulfill his obligations under an insurance policy "is indicative of a pattern…