Majority
— In an action to recover the proceeds of a life insurance policy, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cohalan, J.), dated September 24, 2003, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and denied its cross motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it is barred by the doctrine of laches.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Although the defendant correctly asserts that the doctrine of collateral estoppel is not applicable under the circumstances of this case (see Matter of Hunter, 6 AD3d 117 , 121 [2004], affd 4 NY3d 260 [2005]), the Supreme Court properly granted the
The defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint as barred by the doctrine of laches was properly denied (see Fidelity Natl. Tit. Ins. Co. of N.Y. v First N.Y. Tit. & Abstract, 269 AD2d 560 [2000]; Cohen v Krantz, 227 AD2d 581 [1996]). Florio, J.P., S. Miller, Santucci and Spolzino, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- In re the Estate of Hunter 6 AD3d 117 at 121 p. 491
- In re the Estate of Hunter 4 NY3d 260 p. 491
- Winegrad v. New York University Medical Center 64 NY2d 851 at 853 p. 492
- Zuckerman v. City of New York 49 NY2d 557 p. 492
- Caporino v. Travelers Insurance Co. 62 NY2d 234 p. 492
- Fidelity National Title Insurance v. First New York Title & Abstract Ltd. 269 AD2d 560 p. 492
- Cohen v. Krantz 227 AD2d 581 p. 492