Citation Numbers: 69 A.D.3d 923, 893 N.Y.2d 589
Filed Date: 1/26/2010
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/1/2024
In support of its cross motion, the defendant made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the accident in which the plaintiff’s assignor was injured was not an insured incident (see Central Gen. Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 90 NY2d 195, 199 [1997]; see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). In opposition to the defendant’s prima facie showing, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the defense of lack of coverage is not precluded by
Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the complaint, and granted the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.R, Dillon, Miller and Roman, JJ., concur.