Ronald Hohwald and Linda Hohwald, appellants, v Farm Family Casualty Insurance Company, respondent.
2016-10142 (Index No. 4446/15)
Appellate Division, Second Department, Supreme Court of the State of New York
November 29, 2017
2017 NY Slip Op 08356
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
RANDALL T. ENG, P.J. SHERI S. ROMAN ROBERT J. MILLER LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.
Reynold A. Mauro, Commack, NY, for appellants.
Speyer & Perlberg, LLP, Melville, NY (Marie E. Garelle of counsel), for respondent.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of an insurance contract, the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Pitts, J.), entered August 11, 2016, which, upon an order of the same court dated September 16, 2015, granting the defendant‘s motion pursuant to
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The defendant, Farm Family Casualty Insurance Company (hereinafter Farm Family), issued a policy insuring the plaintiffs’ home during the time period from August 21, 2012, through August 21, 2013. The policy provided that any action brought against Farm Family had to be commenced within two years after the occurrence causing the loss or damage. The complaint alleged that the property was damaged on October 29, 2012, as a result of “Hurricane or Super Storm Sandy.” On November 1, 2012, the plaintiffs submitted a claim to Farm Family for the loss and damage to the property, and on March 10, 2014, Farm Family denied the claim. The plaintiffs then commenced this action against Farm Family on March 13, 2015. Farm Family moved, inter alia, pursuant to
“A party seeking dismissal on the ground that its defense is founded on documentary evidence under
“In moving to dismiss a cause of action pursuant to
Here, the insurance policy contained a clear and unambiguous provision that provided for a limitations period of two years from the date of the occurrence causing the loss or damage in which to commence an action against Farm Family. The documentary evidence conclusively established that this action was time-barred because it was commenced subsequent to the expiration of the two-year limitations period contained in the insurance policy.
The plaintiffs’ contention regarding equitable estoppel is improperly raised for the first time on appeal (see Botach Mgt. Group v Gurash, 138 AD3d at 774).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted Farm Family‘s motion pursuant to
In light of our determination, the plaintiffs’ remaining contention need not be reached.
ENG, P.J., ROMAN, MILLER and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Aprilanne Agostino
Clerk of the Court
