Opinion
June 1, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosenzweig, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The failure to comply with the provision of an insurance policy requiring the insured to submit to an examination under oath and provide other relevant information is a material breach of the policy, precluding recovery of the policy proceeds (see, Pizzirusso v. Allstate Ins. Co., 143 A.D.2d 340; 2423 Mermaid Realty Corp. v. New York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assn., 142 A.D.2d 124; Bulzomi v. New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 92 A.D.2d 878). In this case, the plaintiff's failure to complete his examination under oath and to produce other requested documents constituted a failure to comply with his obligations under the insurance policy. Further, based upon this record, it cannot be said that the plaintiff's attempt to comply has fallen short "through some `technical or unimportant omissions or defects'" (Bulzomi v. New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., supra, at 878, quoting Lentini Bros. Moving Stor. Co. v. New York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assn., 53 N.Y.2d 835, 836). Rather, the record is indicative of a pattern of noncooperation for which no reasonable excuse has been offered such that the complaint was properly dismissed unconditionally (see, Cabe v. Aetna Cas. Sur. Co., 153 A.D.2d 653; Williams v. American Home Assur. Co., 97 A.D.2d 707, affd 62 N.Y.2d 953; Azeem v. Colonial Assur. Co., 96 A.D.2d 123, affd 62 N.Y.2d 951). In this respect, an insurance company is entitled to obtain information promptly while the information is still fresh to enable it to decide upon its obligations and protect against false claims. To permit the plaintiff to give the information more than three years after the fire would have been a material dilution of the insurance company's rights (see, Williams v. American Home Assur. Co., supra).
We have considered the plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Bracken, Sullivan and Santucci, JJ., concur.