Randazzo v. Gerber Life Insurance Company
Decision Date | 12 January 2004 |
Docket Number | 2002-10655 |
Citation | 3 A.D.3d 485,769 N.Y.S.2d 753,2004 NY Slip Op 00143 |
Parties | GWENDOLYN Y. RANDAZZO, Appellant, v. GERBER LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1), dismissal of the complaint is warranted where the documentary evidence resolves all factual issues as a matter of law and definitively disposes of the asserted claims (see Bank v Lake, 284 AD2d 355 [2001]; Roth v Goldman, 254 AD2d 405 [1998]; Gephardt v Morgan Guar. Trust Co. of N.Y., 191 AD2d 229 [1993]). In the instant case, the plaintiff alleges that the subject insurance policy did not properly disclose that there would be a period of days, weeks, or months during which no coverage existed. However, the policy clearly states when coverage is to begin and when premiums are due. Thus, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint.
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ralex Servs., Inc. v. Sw. Marine & Gen. Ins. Co.
...927 N.Y.S.2d 358 ; GuideOne Specialty Ins. Co. v. Admiral Ins. Co., 57 A.D.3d 611, 613, 869 N.Y.S.2d 565 ; Randazzo v. Gerber Life Ins. Co., 3 A.D.3d 485, 486, 769 N.Y.S.2d 753 ). Here, the subject insurance policy Southwest issued to Ralex provided that "[n]o insured will, except at that i......
- Pollack v. Pollack
- People v. Angelo, 2002-08571