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.
NEW YORK CENTRAL MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, appellant, v. William STEELY, et al., respondents, et al., defendant.
In an action for a judgment declaring that the plaintiff is not obligated to defend or indemnify the defendant in an underlying action entitled Masi v. Steely, pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, under Case No. 04 CV 6087, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Natasi, J.), entered May 16, 2005, as denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on its cause of action for a declaration that it had no duty to defend or indemnify its insured.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The personal injury action underlying the instant dispute over insurance coverage arises from an incident in which the plaintiff's insured, the defendant William Steely, physically struck the defendant Garibaldi Masi as the two trained in a gymnasium. Steely maintained that his conduct was the result of a reflex reaction that was triggered when Masi assaulted him. Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly determined that there were triable issues of fact as to whether the incident was an “occurrence” covered by the relevant insurance policy, specifically whether the conduct of the insured was negligent, rather than intentional (see Seneca Ins. Co. v. Naprawa, 294 A.D.2d 183, 184, 742 N.Y.S.2d 232; Merrimack Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Carpenter, 224 A.D.2d 894, 895, 638 N.Y.S.2d 234; cf. Slayko v. Security Mut. Ins. Co., 98 N.Y.2d 289, 746 N.Y.S.2d 444, 774 N.E.2d 208). Further, the Supreme Court correctly determined that there were triable issues of fact as to whether Steely's notice of the altercation to the plaintiff insurer, nearly four months after the event, was untimely based on his good faith belief that no civil lawsuit would result from his conduct (see M.J. Frenzy, LLC v. Utica Nat. Ins. Group, 309 A.D.2d 566, 765 N.Y.S.2d 38). In light of the foregoing, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was properly denied.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: May 30, 2006
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)