Bauerschmidt & Sons, Inc. v Nova Cas. Co. |
2012 NY Slip Op 00740 [91 AD3d 892] |
January 31, 2012 |
Appellate Division, Second Department |
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
Bauerschmidt & Sons, Inc., Respondent, v Nova Casualty Company, Appellant. |
—[*1]
Meyer, Suozzi, English & Klein, P.C., Garden City, N.Y. (Robert N. Zausmer of counsel), for respondent.
In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the defendant is obligated to defend and indemnify the plaintiff in an underlying action entitled Fiore v Bauerschmidt & Sons, Inc., pending in Supreme Court, Kings County, under index No. 3509/09, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kitzes, J.), entered March 9, 2011, which, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the plaintiff and against it declaring that it must defend and indemnify the plaintiff in the underlying action.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
On an appeal from a judgment entered after a nonjury trial, the power of this Court " 'to review the evidence is as broad as that of the trial court, bearing in mind . . . that due regard must be given to the decision of the Trial Judge who was in a position to assess the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses' " (Tornheim v Kohn, 31 AD3d 748, 748 [2006], quoting Universal Leasing Servs. v Flushing Hae Kwan Rest., 169 AD2d 829, 830 [1991]; see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; Huner v State of New York, 90 AD3d 992 [2011]; A. Montilli Plumbing & Heating Corp. v Valentino, 90 AD3d 961 [2011]). Applying this standard here, the record supports the Supreme Court's determination that the plaintiff's delay in notifying the defendant of the underlying incident was reasonably based on a good faith belief of nonliability (see Tri-State Consumer Ins. Co. v Yaskin, 304 AD2d 560, 561 [2003]; Eveready Ins. Co. v Robinson, 300 AD2d 436, 437 [2002]; Abbey Richmond Ambulance Serv. v Northbrook Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 281 AD2d 501, 501-502 [2001]). We decline to disturb the Supreme Court's determination.
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.P., Eng, Lott and Sgroi, JJ., concur.