| Parkview Owners, Inc. v DF Restoration, Inc. |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 02772 [94 AD3d 532] |
| April 12, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| Parkview Owners, Inc., et al., Respondents, v DF Restoration, Inc., Respondent, and RSUI Indemnity Company, Appellant, et al., Defendants. |
—[*1]
Malapero & Prisco LLP, New York (Andrew L. Klauber of counsel), for Parkview Owners,
Inc., Hudson River Property Management Corp. and Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company,
respondents.
Lester Schwab Katz & Dwyer, LLP, New York (Steven B. Prystowsky of counsel), for DF
Restoration, Inc., respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered August 26, 2011, which denied defendant RSUI Indemnity Company's motion for leave to amend its answer, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Defendant waited more than one year from the date on which it received notice of the claim against its insured to assert a disclaimer based on the policy exclusion for residential projects. This unexplained delay was unreasonable as a matter of law (see Insurance Law § 3420 [d]; Agoado Realty Corp. v United Intl. Ins. Co., 260 AD2d 112, 118 [1999], mod on other grounds 95 NY2d 141 [2000]). Thus, although leave to amend a [*2]pleading "shall be freely given" (CPLR 3025 [b]), the residential project exclusion "[can]not be used as an affirmative defense because of its late assertion and the strictures of Insurance Law § 3420 (d)" (Agoado Realty Corp., 95 NY2d at 146 n). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Catterson, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels and Román, JJ.