St. Irene Chrisovalantou Greek Orthodox Monastery, Inc. v. Cigna Ins. Co.

• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Writing for the Court: Before SANTUCCI
• Citation: St. Irene Chrisovalantou Greek Orthodox Monastery, Inc. v. Cigna Ins. Co., 641 N.Y.S.2d 352, 226 A.D.2d 624 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
• Decision Date: 22 April 1996
• Parties: ST. IRENE CHRISOVALANTOU GREEK ORTHODOX MONASTERY, INC., Respondent, v. CIGNA INSURANCE COMPANY, etc., Appellant.

Page 352

641 N.Y.S.2d 352

226 A.D.2d 624

ST. IRENE CHRISOVALANTOU GREEK ORTHODOX MONASTERY, INC., Respondent, v. CIGNA INSURANCE COMPANY, etc., Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Second Department.

April 22, 1996.

Ira J. Greenhill, New York City (Richard J. Wechter, of counsel), for appellant.

Kostelanetz & Fink, L.L.P., New York City (Bryan C. Skarlatos and Brian C. Wille, of counsel), for respondent.

Before SANTUCCI, J.P., and ALTMAN, KRAUSMAN and GOLDSTEIN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

In an action to recover damages for a property loss under the terms of an insurance policy, the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), dated February 8, 1995, as, upon reargument, adhered to a prior determination of the same court contained in an order dated December 1, 1994, which granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment to the extent of declaring that an insurance policy covering the plaintiff's loss was in effect.

ORDERED that the order dated February 8, 1995, is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, so much of the order dated December 1, 1994, as granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment to the extent of declaring that an insurance policy covering the plaintiff's loss was in effect is vacated, and the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is denied in its entirety.

The appellant contends that the Supreme Court erred by declaring that an insurance policy covering the plaintiff's loss was in effect because the plaintiff attempted to defraud the appellant by submitting false proof to substantiate its loss. Although the Supreme Court...