From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tannenbaum v. Republic Insurance Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 20, 1998
249 A.D.2d 460 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

April 20, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Burke, J.)


Ordered that the order is modified, by (1) upon searching the record, deleting the provision thereof which denied the branch of the motion by the defendant Republic Insurance Company which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the motion and dismissing the complaint as to it, and (2) deleting the provision thereof which denied that branch of the motion by the defendant Herman E. Wealcatch, Inc., which was to dismiss the cross claim asserted against it by Republic Insurance Company, and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

On May 13, 1994, the defendant Republic Insurance Company (hereinafter Republic) issued a fire insurance policy to the plaintiff which was to run until May 13, 1995. On June 24, 1994, Republic issued a cancellation notice which advised that the insurance would be terminated as of July 25, 1994. The reason stated for the termination was "loss history: does not meet our guidelines". The plaintiff does not deny that he received the cancellation notice or that he thereafter received and cashed a refund of unearned premium. On November 12, 1994, the subject property was destroyed in a fire. In May 1996 the plaintiff brought this action against Republic and his insurance broker, Herman E. Wealcatch, Inc. (hereinafter Wealcatch). Shortly thereafter, however, the plaintiff discontinued the action as against Wealcatch.

We find that the cancellation notice was sufficiently specific so as to constitute compliance with Insurance Law § 3425 (b) ( see generally, Keith Props. v. Hubinette Cowell Assocs., 243 A.D.2d 663; McCleavey v. Physicians Reciprocal Insurers, 232 A.D.2d 381). Accordingly, the insurance policy was effectively canceled as of July 25, 1994, and there was no coverage at the time the loss occurred. Under these circumstances, Republic is entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as against it. In this regard we note that "on a motion for summary judgment, this court has the power to search the record and grant relief to a * * * nonappealing party" ( Kasper v. Town of Smithtown, 123 A.D.2d 743, 744; see also, Merritt Hill Vineyards v. Windy Hgts. Vineyard, 61 N.Y.2d 106; Sanchez v. United Rental Equip. Co., 246 A.D.2d 524).

In light of our determination herein, we also grant that branch of the cross motion by Wealcatch which sought dismissal of the cross claim asserted against it by Republic.

Bracken, J.P., O'Brien, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Tannenbaum v. Republic Insurance Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 20, 1998
249 A.D.2d 460 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Tannenbaum v. Republic Insurance Company

Case Details

Full title:ALEXANDER TANNENBAUM, Respondent-Appellant, v. REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY…

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

Date published: Apr 20, 1998

Citations

249 A.D.2d 460 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
671 N.Y.S.2d 520

Citing Cases

Weiss v. Zellar Homes, Ltd.

We note that the court also deemed moot the cross motion for partial summary judgment of MHM, a nonappealing…

International Shared Services, Inc. v. McCoy

Upon searching the record, we conclude that the defendant is entitled to summary judgment dismissing the…