Hohwald v. Farm Family Cas. Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 29 November 2017
• Docket Number: 2016–10142,Index No. 4446/15
• Citation: 66 N.Y.S.3d 316,155 A.D.3d 1009
• Parties: Ronald and Linda HOHWALD, appellants, v. FARM FAMILY CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

155 A.D.3d 1009

66 N.Y.S.3d 316

Ronald and Linda HOHWALD, appellants,

v.FARM FAMILY CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, respondent.

2016–10142

Index No. 4446/15

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

Submitted September 28, 2017

November 29, 2017

Reynold A. Mauro, Commack, NY, for appellants.

Speyer & Perlberg, LLP, Melville, N.Y. (Marie E. Garelle of counsel), for respondent.

RANDALL T. ENG, P.J., SHERI S. ROMAN, ROBERT J. MILLER, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of an insurance contract, the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Pitts, J.), entered August 11, 2016, which, upon an order of the same court dated September 16, 2015, granting the defendant's motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint, is in favor of the defendant and against them dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant, Farm Family Casualty Insurance Company (hereinafter Farm Family), issued a policy insuring the plaintiffs' home during the time period from August 21, 2012, through August 21, 2013. The policy provided that any action brought against Farm Family had to be commenced within two years after the occurrence causing the loss or damage. The complaint alleged that the property was damaged on October 29, 2012, as a result of "Hurricane or Super Storm Sandy." On November 1, 2012, the plaintiffs submitted a claim to Farm Family for the loss and damage to the property, and on March 10, 2014, Farm Family denied the claim.

The plaintiffs then commenced this action against Farm Family on March 13, 2015. Farm Family moved, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a)(1) and (5) to dismiss the complaint based upon documentary evidence and on the ground that the action was time-barred. The Supreme Court granted the motion and entered judgment in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiffs dismissing the complaint. The plaintiffs appeal.

"A party seeking dismissal on the ground that its defense is founded on documentary evidence under CPLR 3211(a)(1) has the burden of submitting documentary evidence that resolves all factual issues as a matter of law, and conclusively disposes of the plaintiff's claim" ( Botach Mgt. Group v. Gurash, 138 A.D.3d 771, 772, 31 N.Y.S.3d 80 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Fontanetta v. John Doe 1, 73 A.D.3d 78, 83, 898 N.Y.S.2d 569 ; Sullivan v. State of New York, 34 A.D.3d 443, 445, 824 N.Y.S.2d 135 ). For evidence to be considered documentary, it "must be unambiguous and of undisputed authenticity" ( Fontanetta v. John Doe 1, 73 A.D.3d at 86, 898 N.Y.S.2d 569 ). Contracts are among the documents that qualify as documentary evidence (see id. at 84–85, 898 N.Y.S.2d 569 ).

"In moving to dismiss a cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) as barred by the applicable limitations period, a defendant bears the initial burden of demonstrating, prima facie, that the time within which to commence the action has expired" ( Botach Mgt. Group v. Gurash, 138 A.D.3d at 773, 31 N.Y.S.3d 80 [internal quotation marks...