Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
YORK SPECIALITY FOOD, INC. doing business as Oscar's on York, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. TOWER INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK, Defendant-Appellant, Steven Zagoria, et al., Defendants.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Judith J. Gische, J.), entered November 16, 2006, which, to the extent appealed from, denied the motion of defendant Tower Insurance Company (Tower) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of Tower dismissing the complaint as against it.
Where a liability insurance policy requires notice of an occurrence to the carrier as soon as practicable, such notice must be given within a reasonable period of time (Great Canal Realty Corp. v. Seneca Ins. Co., Inc., 5 N.Y.3d 742, 800 N.Y.S.2d 521, 833 N.E.2d 1196 [2005] ). The insured's noncompliance with this requirement constitutes failure of a condition precedent, thus vitiating the contract as a matter of law, even without a showing of prejudice (Argo Corp. v. Greater N.Y. Mut. Ins. Co., 4 N.Y.3d 332, 339, 794 N.Y.S.2d 704, 827 N.E.2d 762 [2005] ).
Plaintiff became aware of the claimant's accident within three days, but did not notify Tower of the possibility of a claim until eight months later. Where a reasonable person could envision liability, that person has a duty to make some inquiry as to potential liability (White v. City of New York, 81 N.Y.2d 955, 958, 598 N.Y.S.2d 759, 615 N.E.2d 216 [1993] ). Although a good-faith belief in non-liability may excuse the failure to give timely notice (see Great Canal Realty Corp., 5 N.Y.3d at 743, 800 N.Y.S.2d 521, 833 N.E.2d 1196), there is no indication that plaintiff ever took any action to ascertain the possibility of its liability for the claimant's accident. Had plaintiff's president questioned his employees, some of whom had witnessed the accident, he would have learned that the claimant, after falling in front of the premises, had been taken away in an ambulance. Since he made no investigation at all, there is no basis for a good-faith belief in plaintiff's non-liability.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: January 31, 2008
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)