Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Castlepoint Insurance Company v. Mike's Pipe Yard and Building Supply Corp.

New York Supreme and/or Appellate Courts Appellate Division, First Department


December 13, 2012

CASTLEPOINT INSURANCE COMPANY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
MIKE'S PIPE YARD AND BUILDING SUPPLY CORP., DEFENDANT, DAMON HAINDL,
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Castlepoint Ins. Co. v Mike's Pipe Yard & Bldg. Supply Corp.

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on December 13, 2012

Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Renwick, Clark, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J.), entered November 16, 2011, which, upon renewal and reargument, granted plaintiff Castlepoint Insurance Company's motion for summary judgment to declare that Castlepoint did not have an obligation to indemnify or defend defendant Mike's Pipe Yard and Building Supply Corp. (Mike's) in an underlying personal injury action brought by defendant Damon Haindl, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court providently exercised its discretion in granting Castlepoint's motion to renew and reargue its prior motion (see e.g. Meija v Nanni, 307 AD2d 870 [1st Dept 2003]). Castlepoint correctly argued that Mike's could not demonstrate the reasonableness of its delay in reporting the accident leading to Haindl's injury (Paramount Ins. Co. v Rosedale Gardens, 293 AD2d 235, 240 [1st Dept 2002]). Mike's principal knew of the accident the day it occurred and of the potential for litigation almost immediately thereafter. In addition, the arguments it made in opposition to the initial motion for summary judgment had been previously rejected in a similar action (Tower Ins. Co. of N.Y. v Mike's Pipe Yard & Bldg. Supply Corp., 35 AD3d 275 [1st Dept 2006]), making it unreasonable for Mike's to think they would suffice to excuse late notice to its insurer in the instant action.

We have considered the remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: DECEMBER 13, 2012

CLERK

20121213

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.