Opinion
December 17, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Zelman, J.).
Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Because there was no evidence supporting the claim that the plaintiff misrepresented or concealed a material fact on the insurance application, we find that the court properly dismissed that defense (see, Abulaynain v. New York Merchant Bakers Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 128 A.D.2d 575, 576; L.W.C. Agency v. St. Paul Fire Mar. Ins. Co., 125 A.D.2d 371, 374; Boyd v. Otsego Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 125 A.D.2d 977; Lighton v. Madison-Onondaga Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 106 A.D.2d 892).
We also agree that the appellant's claims regarding the proof-of-loss statements were properly dismissed. There was no evidence to support the claim that the plaintiff intentionally misrepresented the damages (see, Deitsch Textiles v. New York Prop. Underwriting Assn., 62 N.Y.2d 999, 1001; Kaffalos, Inc. v. Excelsior Ins. Co., 105 A.D.2d 957). Nor was there any question but that the plaintiff substantially complied with the requirement to timely complete the proof-of-loss statements (see, High Fashions Hair Cutters v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 145 A.D.2d 465, 466; P.S. Auctions v. Exchange Mut. Ins. Co., 105 A.D.2d 473, 475; Ninth Fed. Sav. Loan Assn. v. New York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assn., 99 A.D.2d 456).
We have considered the appellant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.