TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Henry Modell & Co. v. General Insurance

Henry Modell and Company, Inc. v. General Insurance Company of Trieste & Venice, Doing Business as Generali

Henry Modell & Co. v. Gen. Ins., 193 A.D.2d 412 (1993)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
May 6, 1993
Citations
193 A.D.2d 412597 N.Y.S.2d 751993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4615

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered on or about February 4, 1992, which granted defendant insurer’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and declaring that there is no insurance coverage provided for plaintiffs claimed loss, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The IAS Court properly determined that plaintiff insured’s claim for loss and damage to its retail store merchandise allegedly caused by dust, dirt and debris infiltrating and permeating the insured’s premises as a result of a neighboring Metropolitan Transportation Authority subway construction project was not covered under the policy of commercial property insurance issued by the defendant to the plaintiff by reason of the plaintiffs failure to give timely notice of the claim "as soon as possible” as required by the policy (Power Auth. v Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 117 AD2d 336, 339 ), because the damages claimed occurred prior to the inception of the policy and were fully known to the plaintiff more than eight *413 months before the commencement of coverage (Insurance Law § 1101 [a] [1], [2]; cf., Danzeisen Realty Corp. v Continental Ins. Co., 170 AD2d 432 ), because the plaintiffs failure to prevent the infiltration of the dust and dirt through its air conditioning and ventilation units barred coverage under the policy exclusion for damages caused by faulty maintenance, and because the damage to the property was due to "pollutants” or "contaminants” specifically excluded from coverage under the policy’s pollution exclusion (Park-Ohio Indus. v Home Indem. Co., 975 F2d 1215, 1219; Powers Chemco v Federal Ins. Co., 74 NY2d 910, 911 ).

We have reviewed the plaintiffs remaining claims and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Wallach, Kupferman and Nardelli, JJ.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 3 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

Cited by 12 cases

View all citing references →
1996: 21998: 12001: 12002: 12004: 12005: 12011: 12013: 12016: 319962026peak 2016 · 3

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Power Auth. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 117 A.D.2d 336 (1986) 67
Powers Chemco, Inc. v. Fed. Ins., 548 N.E.2d 1301 (N.Y. 1989) 66
David Danzeisen Realty Corp. v. Cont'l Ins., 170 A.D.2d 432 (1991) 5

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list