Majority
Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the respondent, in opposition to the appellant’s prima facie showing, failed to raise a triable issue of fact.
The respondent’s contention that there was a complete absence of coverage that could be asserted as a basis for disclaimer notwithstanding its failure to comply with the 30-day rule set forth in Insurance Law § 5106 (a) and 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 (c) (see generally Fair Price Med. Supply Corp. v Travelers Indem. Co., 10 NY3d 556 [2008]; Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y. v Maryland Cas. Co., 90 NY2d 274 [1997]; Central Gen. Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 90 NY2d 195 [1997]; Zappone v Home Ins. Co., 55 NY2d 131 [1982]), is improperly raised for the first time on appeal, and, therefore, is not properly before this Court.
In light of our determination, we need not reach the plaintiff’s remaining contentions. Mastro, J.P., Dickerson, Sgroi and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- Viviane Etienne Medical Care, P.C. v. Country-Wide Ins. 114 AD3d 33 p. 843
- Westchester Medical Center v. Hereford Insurance 95 AD3d 1306 at 1306-1307 p. 843
- Westchester Medical Center v. Lancer Insurance 94 AD3d 984 at 984 p. 843
- NYU-Hospital for Joint Diseases v. American International Group, Inc. 89 AD3d 702 at 703 p. 843
- Mount Sinai Hospital v. Country Wide Insurance 85 AD3d 1136 at 1137 p. 843
- Westchester Medical Center v. Lincoln General Insurance 60 AD3d 1045 at 1045-1046 p. 843
- Presbyterian Hospital v. Maryland Casualty Co. 90 NY2d 274 p. 843
- Central General Hospital v. Chubb Group of Insurance Companies 90 NY2d 195 p. 843
- Zappone v. Home Insurance 55 NY2d 131 p. 843