From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Home Ins. Co. v. Leprino Foods Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 27, 2004
7 A.D.3d 471 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

3760.

Decided May 27, 2004.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard F. Braun, J.), entered October 16, 2003, which awarded plaintiff summary judgment in the principal amount of $58,653, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Robinson Waters D'Orisio, Denver, CO (Anthony L. Leffert of counsel), for appellant.

Soffer Reich, LLP, New York (Victor K. Soffer of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Nardelli, J.P., Lerner, Friedman, Marlow, Gonzalez, JJ.


There was no need to resolve issues of fact regarding an alleged oral agreement. Even if the parties had come to such an agreement with respect to the retrospective adjustment, Condition #8 of the policy expressly prohibited oral modifications. (The inadvertent omission of the complete policy jacket from the original moving papers was adequately explained in the reply affidavit submitted by the former Casualty Coverage Director of plaintiff's Claims Department.) Plaintiff's no-oral-modification argument, although raised for the first time on reply, was directly responsive to defendant's opposition to the summary judgment motion ( Davison v. Order Ecumenical, 281 A.D.2d 383).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

Home Ins. Co. v. Leprino Foods Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 27, 2004
7 A.D.3d 471 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

Home Ins. Co. v. Leprino Foods Co.

Case Details

Full title:THE HOME INSURANCE COMPANY, ETC., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. LEPRINO FOODS…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: May 27, 2004

Citations

7 A.D.3d 471 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
777 N.Y.S.2d 472

Citing Cases

Zarinfar v. Bd. of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of N.Y.

Although petitioner's allegations of discrimination were in respondents' administrative record, petitioner…

L.Y.E. Diamonds, Ltd. v. Gemological Inst. of Am., Inc.

Plaintiffs did not annex a competing version to their opposition and, even on appeal, do not directly assert…