Goel v Tower Ins. Co. of N.Y.

Annotate this Case
Goel v Tower Ins. Co. of N.Y. 2012 NY Slip Op 05099 Decided on June 26, 2012 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on June 26, 2012
Gonzalez, P.J., Tom, Andrias, Acosta, Freedman, JJ.
8014 106468/11

[*1]Ashok Goel, Plaintiff-Respondent

v

Tower Insurance Company of New York, et al., Defendants-Appellants.




Mound Cotton Wollan & Greengrass, New York (Kevin F.
Buckley of counsel), for appellants.
Becker & D'Agostino, P.C., New York (Michael D'Agostino of
counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Anil Singh, J.), entered February 21, 2012, which denied defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and directed plaintiff to appear for an examination under oath (EUO) within 90 days, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendants did not establish that plaintiff's failure to comply with the coverage conditions by not sitting for an EUO and by not producing all of the documents sought by defendants, was willful noncompliance with the terms of the subject policy. The motion court properly considered the totality of the circumstances in concluding that plaintiff's conduct was not so willful as to require excusing defendants from liability (see Erie Ins. Co. v JMM Props., LLC, 66 AD3d 1282, 1285 [2009]), particularly where, as here, there is evidence to suggest that defendants may have also breached the terms of the policy. Moreover, the record shows that defendants did not act diligently to obtain plaintiff's cooperation in a manner that was reasonably calculated to bring it about (see Utica First Ins. Co. v Arken, Inc., 18 AD3d 644 [2005]).

There is no basis, at this stage of the proceedings, to dismiss defendant Tower Group, Inc. from the action.

We have considered defendants' remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

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

ENTERED: JUNE 26, 2012

DEPUTY CLERK

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.