State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. v. Shapiro
| Decision Date | 03 March 1986 |
| Citation | 499 N.Y.S.2d 170,118 A.D.2d 556 |
| Parties | STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Respondent, v. Irene SHAPIRO, Defendant, Kenneth A. Polokoff, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Scoppetta & Seiff, New York City (Arthur N. Seiff and Eric A. Seiff, of counsel), for appellant.
Greenhill and Rubin, New York City (Lawrence N. Berwitz, of counsel), for respondent.
Before GIBBONS, J.P., and THOMPSON, BROWN and WEINSTEIN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action for a declaratory judgment to determine the duty of the plaintiff State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (State Farm) to defend the appellant in an action brought against him by the defendant Irene Shapiro, Kenneth A. Polokoff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jordan, J.), dated December 21, 1984, which denied his motion for an order pursuant to CPLR 2005 and 5015 vacating a default judgment entered against him.
Order reversed, with costs, and motion for an order excusing the appellant's default granted. The appellant's answer and counterclaim are deemed served. The plaintiff's time to reply to the counterclaim is extended until 20 days after service upon it of a copy of the order to be made hereon, with notice of entry.
The defendant Irene Shapiro commenced an action against the appellant to recover damages for injuries sustained as the result of an alleged assault by the appellant. The plaintiff State Farm thereupon brought this action for a judgment declaring that it had no duty under a homeowner's policy issued to the appellant to defend him in the underlying action. State Farm alleged that Shapiro's claims were entirely within the policy exclusion which excluded from coverage "bodily injury or property damage which is expected or intended by the insured". On June 13, 1984, State Farm personally served a summons and complaint upon the appellant. Service of an answer was to be made within 20 days thereafter, i.e. by July 3, 1984 (CPLR 3012[a] ). However, the appellant did not serve his answer within this period and no application to extend the time to answer was made (see, CPLR 3012[d] ). The appellant's attorney sent a letter dated June 14, 1984 to State Farm's attorney promising to "respond to the complaint in due course". On or about June 20, 1984, counsel for State Farm advised the appellant's attorney that the return date of an order to show cause which sought a stay of the underlying action and which had been served simultaneously with the summons and complaint in this action had to be adjourned because he had been unable to serve the defendant Shapiro by the date indicated in the order.
On August 15, 1984, a default judgment was entered without notice to the appellant, declaring that the homeowner's policy issued by State Farm to the appellant did not cover the acts complained of in the underlying action.
By order to show cause dated August 29, 1984 (Leone, J.), the appellant moved to vacate the default judgment pursuant to CPLR 2005 and 5015. Annexed thereto was a proposed answer containing a counterclaim which the appellant sought to serve upon State Farm. Special Term denied the appellant's motion to vacate his default, finding that he had failed to demonstrate a meritorious defense. On this basis, Special...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Mugavero
...N.E.2d 172]. In arriving at this conclusion, the court relied in part upon an earlier decision in the same case (see, State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Shapiro, 118 AD2d 556 which had vacated the insured's default in answering the insurance company's complaint for a declaratory judgment. Beside......
-
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Riggio
...565, 358 N.E.2d 258; McGroarty v. Great Amer. Ins. Co., 36 N.Y.2d 358, 368 N.Y.S.2d 485, 329 N.E.2d 172; State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Shapiro, 118 A.D.2d 556, 449 N.Y.S.2d 170). We note that the defendant Riggio should be permitted to retain independent defense counsel, at Allstate's expen......
-
Melito v. Romano
...Ins. Co., 15 A.D.2d 526, 222 N.Y.S.2d 736, affd. 11 N.Y.2d 1026, 230 N.Y.S.2d 25, 183 N.E.2d 908; see, State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Shapiro, 118 A.D.2d 556, 557-558, 499 N.Y.S.2d 170, lv. dismissed 72 N.Y.2d 1042, 534 N.Y.S.2d 940, 531 N.E.2d 660). Since, on defendant's version of the fact......
-
Patron v. Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co.
...59 N.Y.2d 966, 466 N.Y.S.2d 320, 453 N.E.2d 549 and 60 N.Y.2d 586, 467 N.Y.S.2d 127, 454 N.E.2d 127; State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Shapiro, 118 A.D.2d 556, 499 N.Y.S.2d 170). Because of the defendant's failure to submit an affidavit of merit, it was error as a matter of law to open its defa......