Majority
In this action for a declaratory judgment in an insurance
Defendant’s argument regarding the implication of its own automobile exclusion clause is, for the same reasons, unpersuasive. Neither do the facts of this case implicate the policy’s exclusion from products-completed operations hazard coverage for “[w]ork that has not yet been completed or abandoned,” in as much as the slip-and-fall accident occurred one day after the insured made the oil delivery.
Finally, summary judgment was not premature. Defendant has failed to present any “evidentiary basis [for its] suggestion] that discovery may lead to relevant evidence” (Bailey v New York City Tr. Auth., 270 AD2d 156 , 157 [2000]). Further, under the circumstances of this case, plaintiffs counsel was entitled to rely on his affidavit in support of plaintiffs motion for summary judgment (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 , 563 [1980]). Concur — Andrias, J.E, Friedman, DeGrasse, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
Cases cited
- Wausau Underwriters Insurance v. St. Barnabas Hospital 145 AD2d 314 at 315 p. 548
- Zaccari v. Progressive Northwestern Insurance 35 AD3d 597 at 599-600 p. 548
- Bailey v. New York City Transit Authority 270 AD2d 156 at 157 p. 548
- Zuckerman v. City of New York 49 NY2d 557 at 563 p. 548