Summary
affirming lower court order that insurance company "reimburse plaintiff for any and all legal costs incurred in defending [the covered] action"
Summary of this case from Liberty Ins. Corp. v. Admiral Ins. Co.Opinion
March 11, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Stuart C. Cohen, J.).
Order of the same court, entered August 28, 1992, unanimously affirmed, insofar as it denied renewal and the appeal therefrom unanimously dismissed insofar as it denied reargument.
Appeal from the order of the same court, entered July 29, 1992, unanimously dismissed as subsumed in the appeal from the amended order.
Given the minor nature of the injuries allegedly sustained on plaintiff-insured's premises by the infant plaintiff in the Epps action, the manner in which the injury occurred, and the medical treatment received (see, Kelly v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 174 A.D.2d 481), the circumstances did not reasonably suggest the possibility of a claim until plaintiff received notice of the Epps action brought against the City of New York. It was at that point that notice of the occurrence was given "as soon as practicable" within the meaning of the policy (see, Mighty Midgets v. Centennial Ins. Co., 47 N.Y.2d 12, 19-20). Once it was determined that defendant was in breach of its obligation to defend and indemnify plaintiff, the relief granted in the amended order, directing defendant to provide plaintiff with a defense in the Epps action and to reimburse plaintiff for any and all legal costs incurred in defending that action, was appropriate (see, 44th Hotel Assocs. v. Zurich Ins. Co., 174 A.D.2d 475; Muhlstock Co. v. American Home Assur. Co., 117 A.D.2d 117, 126).
We have reviewed defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Milonas, J.P., Rosenberger, Kupferman and Ross, JJ.