Majority
Moreover, to the extent that the third cause of action asserted against the appellant can be construed as one alleging negligent procurement of a policy, it must nevertheless fail because, having received the policy more than two years prior to the fire, the plaintiff is conclusively presumed to have read and assented to its terms (see Loevner v Sullivan & Strauss Agency, Inc., 35 AD3d 392 , 395 [2006]; Busker on Roof Ltd. Partnership Co. v Warrington, 283 AD2d 376 , 377 [2001]; Rotanelli v Madden, 172 AD2d 815 [1991]).
The appellant’s remaining contention is not properly before this Court. Fisher, J.P., Angiolillo, Lott and Sgroi, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- J.A.O. Acquisition Corp. v. Stavitsky 8 NY3d 144 at 148 p. 974
- Wong v. Gottbetter 18 AD3d 541 p. 974
- Ambrosino v. Exchange Insurance 265 AD2d 627 p. 974
- Murphy v. Kuhn 90 NY2d 266 p. 974
- Kay Bee Builders, Inc. v. Merchant's Mutual Insurance 61 AD3d 720 at 722 p. 974
- Curiel v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 35 AD3d 343 p. 974
- Duratech Industries, Inc. v. Continental Insurance 21 AD3d 342 at 345 p. 974
- Loevner v. Sullivan & Strauss Agency, Inc. 35 AD3d 392 at 395 p. 974
- Busker on the Roof Ltd. Partnership Co. v. Warrington 283 AD2d 376 at 377 p. 974
- Rotanelli v. Madden 172 AD2d 815 p. 974