Opinion
February 28, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Yoswein, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
We agree with the Supreme Court that the allegations in the underlying complaint involve acts which are not covered under the plaintiff's insurance policy. Therefore, the defendant Cigna Property and Casualty Companies has no duty to defend the plaintiff in the underlying action (see, Meyers Sons Corp. v Zurich Am. Ins. Group, 74 N.Y.2d 298, 302-303). Balletta, J.P., Pizzuto, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.