From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Baluk v. N.Y. Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Feb 7, 2014
114 A.D.3d 1151 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)

Opinion

2014-02-7

Svetlana BALUK and Mark Osilovskiy, Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. NEW YORK CENTRAL MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant–Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Oneida County (David A. Murad, J.), entered December 24, 2012. The order granted the motion of defendant to dismiss the complaint and denied the cross motion of plaintiffs for summary judgment. Michele E. Detraglia, Utica, for Plaintiffs–Appellants. Rupp, Baase, Pfalzgraf, Cunningham & Coppola LLC, Buffalo (Marco Cercone of Counsel), for Defendant–Respondent.


Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Oneida County (David A. Murad, J.), entered December 24, 2012. The order granted the motion of defendant to dismiss the complaint and denied the cross motion of plaintiffs for summary judgment.
Michele E. Detraglia, Utica, for Plaintiffs–Appellants. Rupp, Baase, Pfalzgraf, Cunningham & Coppola LLC, Buffalo (Marco Cercone of Counsel), for Defendant–Respondent.
MEMORANDUM:

Plaintiffs commenced this action alleging that defendant breached its obligations under their homeowner's policy when it failed to reimburse them fully for sums they expended to repair or replace damage to their residence resulting from “puff-back” from their malfunctioning furnace. Supreme Court properly denied plaintiffs' cross motion seeking summary judgment and granted defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint based upon plaintiffs' failure to commence this action within two years after the date of loss, as the policy required ( see 1840 Concourse Assoc., LP v. Praetorian Ins. Co., 89 A.D.3d 592, 592, 934 N.Y.S.2d 112, lv. denied19 N.Y.3d 809, 2012 WL 3740733; Klawiter v. CGU/OneBeacon Ins. Group, 27 A.D.3d 1155, 1155, 810 N.Y.S.2d 756). Plaintiffs' reliance upon Bakos v. New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 83 A.D.3d 1485, 920 N.Y.S.2d 552 is misplaced inasmuch as the insured in Bakos timely commenced that action within two years of the date of loss.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs. SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, and VALENTINO, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Baluk v. N.Y. Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Feb 7, 2014
114 A.D.3d 1151 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
Case details for

Baluk v. N.Y. Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.

Case Details

Full title:Svetlana BALUK and Mark Osilovskiy, Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. NEW YORK…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Date published: Feb 7, 2014

Citations

114 A.D.3d 1151 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
114 A.D.3d 1151
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 770

Citing Cases

Lobello v. N.Y. Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.

Plaintiff, on the other hand, interprets the phrase "date of loss" as the date on which the claim was denied…