From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lee v. American Transit Ins. Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 21, 2003
304 A.D.2d 713 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2002-10066

Argued February 11, 2003.

April 21, 2003.

In an action, inter alia, to recover unpaid no-fault benefits, the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Schmidt, J.), dated September 15, 2002, which, among other things, denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Marjorie E. Bornes, New York, N.Y., for appellant.

Michael A. Cervini, P.C., Jackson Heights, N.Y. (Robin Mary Heaney of counsel), for respondent.

Before: A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

"An insurance carrier may not, after repudiating liability, create grounds for its refusal to pay by demanding compliance with proof of loss provisions of the policy" (State Farm Ins. Co. v. Domotor, 266 A.D.2d 219; see Igbara Realty Corp. v. New York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assn., 63 N.Y.2d 201; Lentini Bros. Moving Stor. Co. v. New York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assn., 53 N.Y.2d 835; Sherri v. Natl' Sur. Co., 243 N.Y. 266; see also King v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 218 A.D.2d 863, 865; Beckley v. Otsego County Farmers Coop. Fire Ins. Co., 3 A.D.2d 190).

In the present case, there are issues of fact as to whether the defendant insurance company repudiated liability under its policy, within the meaning of the rule stated above, by issuing a series of claim denial forms prior to any alleged failure by the plaintiff to submit to an examination under oath. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in its entirety, based on the plaintiff's failure to submit to an examination under oath as requested on June 12, 1998 (see e.g. Ayyub v. Smith, 291 A.D.2d 864; Rajchandra Corp. v. Title Guar. Co., 163 A.D.2d 765; Treptow v. Exchange Mut. Ins. Co., 106 A.D.2d 767; Ocean-Clear v. Continental Cas. Co., 94 A.D.2d 717).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.

PRUDENTI, P.J., KRAUSMAN, GOLDSTEIN and SCHMIDT, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Lee v. American Transit Ins. Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 21, 2003
304 A.D.2d 713 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Lee v. American Transit Ins. Co.

Case Details

Full title:HAN-KI LEE, respondent, v. AMERICAN TRANSIT INSURANCE COMPANY, appellant

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

Date published: Apr 21, 2003

Citations

304 A.D.2d 713 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
757 N.Y.S.2d 796

Citing Cases

Smith v. GEICO Ins. Co.

However, the plaintiff has supplied the Court with a copy of said denial of claim. It has been held that once…

Ocean Diag. Imaging P.C. v. St. Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.

Consequently, defendant is precluded from raising most defenses ( see Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y. v.…