Opinion
Submitted December 6, 1999
February 17, 2000
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the third-party defendant Connecticut Indemnity Co. appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), entered December 7, 1998, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint insofar as asserted against it.
Thurm Heller, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Jordan Sklar of counsel), for third-party defendant -appellant.
FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., SONDRA MILLER, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The plaintiffs commenced this action to recover damages for injuries allegedly sustained in a vehicular collision which took place on June 30, 1995. The third-party defendant Connecticut Indemnity Co. (hereinafter Connecticut Indemnity) contends, inter alia, that it is not obligated to indemnify or defend the defendants because the policy which it issued to them was not effective until July 1, 1995, i.e., the day following the accident.
The copy of the policy which Connecticut Indemnity submitted in support of its motion for summary judgment, however, recites a policy period commencing June 30, 1995, even though the certificate of insurance issued in conjunction with the policy states an effective date of July 1, 1995. Accordingly, Connecticut Indemnity failed to demonstrate its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, since there is a question of fact as to whether it insured the defendants' vehicle on the date of the accident (see generally, Freedom Cashier v. Federal Ins. Co., 262 A.D.2d 353 [2d Dept., June 7, 1999]; B.T.R. E. Greenbush v. General Acc. Co., 206 A.D.2d 791; Dryden Cent. School Dist. v. Dryden Aquatic Racing Team, 195 A.D.2d 790; see also, Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557).
Connecticut Indemnity's remaining contention is without merit.