Aspen Ins. UK Ltd. v. Nieto

• Citation: 137 A.D.3d 720,27 N.Y.S.3d 52
• Parties: ASPEN INSURANCE UK LIMITED, appellant, v. Rey J. NIETO, et al., respondents, et al., defendant.
• Decision Date: 02 March 2016
• Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division

137 A.D.3d 720
27 N.Y.S.3d 52

ASPEN INSURANCE UK LIMITED, appellant,
v.
Rey J. NIETO, et al., respondents, et al., defendant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

March 2, 2016.

27 N.Y.S.3d 53

Lester Schwab Katz & Dwyer, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Eric A. Portuguese and Jonathan Glasser of counsel), for appellant.

David Ullman, P.C., Garden City, N.Y., for respondents.

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., MARK C. DILLON, SHERI S. ROMAN, and COLLEEN D. DUFFY, JJ.

137 A.D.3d 720

In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the plaintiff is not obligated to defend or indemnify the defendants Rey J. Nieto and 141–12 84th Drive Realty, LLC, in an underlying personal injury action entitled Novillo v. 141–12 84th Drive Realty, LLC, pending in the Supreme Court, Queens County, under Index No. 25789/11, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lebowitz, J.), dated August 1, 2013, which denied its motion for summary judgment declaring that it is not obligated to defend or indemnify the defendants Rey J. Nieto and 141–12 84th Drive Realty, LLC, in the underlying action.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Where, as here, an insurance policy requires that notice of an occurrence be given "as soon as practicable," notice must be given within a reasonable time in view of all of the circumstances (see Great Canal Realty Corp. v. Seneca Ins. Co., Inc., 5 N.Y.3d 742, 743, 800 N.Y.S.2d 521, 833 N.E.2d 1196 ; Ponok Realty Corp. v. United Natl. Specialty Ins. Co., 69 A.D.3d 596, 597, 893 N.Y.S.2d 125 ; 120 Whitehall

137 A.D.3d 721

Realty Assoc., LLC v. Hermitage Ins. Co., 40 A.D.3d 719, 721, 835 N.Y.S.2d 715 ; Genova v. Regal Mar. Indus., 309 A.D.2d 733, 734, 765 N.Y.S.2d 266 ). "However, circumstances may exist that will excuse or explain the insured's delay in giving notice, such as a reasonable belief in nonliability" (Genova v. Regal Mar. Indus., 309 A.D.2d at 734, 765 N.Y.S.2d 266 ; see Great Canal Realty Corp. v. Seneca Ins. Co., Inc., 5 N.Y.3d at 743–744, 800 N.Y.S.2d 521, 833 N.E.2d 1196 ; Ponok Realty Corp. v. United Natl. Specialty Ins. Co., 69 A.D.3d at 597, 893 N.Y.S.2d 125 ; C.C.R. Realty of Dutchess v. New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 1 A.D.3d 304, 305, 766 N.Y.S.2d 856 ). It is the insured's burden to demonstrate the reasonableness of the excuse (see Bigman Bros., Inc. v. QBE Ins. Corp., 73 A.D.3d 1110, 1111, 904 N.Y.S.2d 439 ; Ponok Realty Corp. v. United Natl. Specialty Ins....