[*1]
Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co. v Spearhead Dev., Inc.
2005 NY Slip Op 51629(U) [9 Misc 3d 132(A)]
Decided on October 11, 2005
Appellate Term, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.


Decided on October 11, 2005
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT

PRESENT:
HON. WILLIAM P. McCOOE, J.P.
HON. PHYLLIS GANGEL-JACOB
HON. MARTIN SCHOENFELD, Justices.


Atlantic Mutual Insurance CompanyNY County Clerk's and CENTENNIAL INSURANCE COMPANY, #570531/04 Plaintiffs-Appellants, 04-355

against

Spearhead Development, Inc., Defendant-Respondent.


Plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Civil Court, New York County, entered October 17, 2003 (Donna G. Recant, J.) which denied their motion for summary judgment.


PER CURIAM:

Order entered October 17, 2003 (Donna G. Recant, J.) reversed, with $10 costs, and plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of plaintiffs and against defendant in the amount of $3,529, plus statutory interest from May 17, 2001.

We find no genuine issue of fact concerning defendant's liability for the balance of earned premiums due on the marine open cargo policy of insurance issued at defendant's request. In support of the motion, plaintiffs submitted an affidavit from one of their officers, a copy of the insurance policy sued upon, and detailed billing and audit statements indicating a balance of unpaid premiums of $3,529, the amount sought herein.

In opposition, defendant asserted that the policy had been cancelled. However, no written proof of cancellation was produced as required by the policy (paragraph 35). Nor was a [*2]triable issue raised as to the amount of premiums due. Significantly, the premium calculations were based upon information provided by defendant as to "total annual gross sales," the specified benchmark under the policy (paragraph 31Q). Since the record raises no bona fide issue of fact, plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment should have been granted.

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.
Decision Date: October 11, 2005