Preview
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 08/24/2020 04:57 PM INDEX NO. 510798/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 116 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/24/2020
Supreme Court of the State of New York
COUNTY OF KINGS
------------------------------------------------------------- X Index No. 510798/2018
Atlantic Casualty Insurance Company, : IAS Part: 81
: Hon.: J. Carl J. Landicino
Plaintiff, :
: DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO
- against - : PLAINTIFF’S CROSS-MOTION AND
: REPLY
Eastern Fruit & Vegetables, Inc., :
:
Defendant. :
------------------------------------------------------------- X
L. Blake Morris, an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of New York,
affirms pursuant to CPLR § 2106 under the penalty of perjury that:
1. Your affiant is the attorney for the defendant in this instant action.
2. I submit this opposition to plaintiff’s cross-motion as to the relief
requested therein as stated as follows: (1) dismiss defendant’s second and sixth
affirmative defenses, (2) restore Motion Sequence 03 and (3) granting such other and
further relief as this Court may deem just, equitable and proper (footnote one states
that further relief could be leave to amend complaint).
3. As to the third plaintiff requested relief; defendant moves to dismiss the
complaint and not opposed to the Court also granting leave to amend pursuant to
plaintiff’s request.
I. PLAINTIFF’S CROSS-MOTION IN SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION WITH
SUPPORTING PAPERS FAILS TO COMPLY WITH CPLR REQUIREMENTS
AND NOT PROPERLY BEFORE THE COURT
Defective (Cross) Notice of Motion
4. With respect to motion practice, 22 NYCRR §202.7(a) states in relevant
part that “[t]here shall be compliance with the procedures prescribed in the CPLR for the
bringing of motions” and that “except [with respect to orders to show cause], no motion
1 of 8
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 08/24/2020 04:57 PM INDEX NO. 510798/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 116 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/24/2020
shall be filed with the court unless there have been served and filed with the motion
papers . . . a notice of motion.” CPLR §2211 states that a “motion is an application for an
order” and a “motion on notice is made [only] when a notice of the motion or an order to
show cause is served.” More specifically, CPLR §2214(a) requires that a “notice of
motion shall specify the time and place of the hearing on the motion, the supporting
papers upon which the motion is based, the relief demanded and the grounds therefore”
(emphasis added). Phoenix Enterprises Ltd. Partnership v Insurance Co. of North
America, 515 N.Y.S.2d 443 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 1987).
5. The plaintiff notice of cross motion in its recitals of supporting papers fails
to include the dates of execution of those supporting papers and/or fails to mention other
supporting papers including the grounds for relief therefore. This failure precludes the
granting by the Court of any affirmative relief in favor of plaintiff on the basis of those
supporting papers.
Particularity of Affidavits Irregularity
Certificate of Conformity Omission
6. Suzanne Parrish affidavit in support of plaintiff’s cross-motion sworn to
on the second day of June, 2020 (“Parrish affid.”) contains an out of state notary omitting
the certificate of conformity. CPLR 2309(c) states “an oath or affirmation taken without
the state shall be treated as if taken within the state if it is accompanied by such
certificate or certificates as would be required to entitle a deed acknowledged without the
state to be recorded within the state if such deed had been acknowledged before the
officer who administered the oath or affirmation.”
2
2 of 8
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 08/24/2020 04:57 PM INDEX NO. 510798/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 116 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/24/2020
7. With regard to the certificate, Real Property Law § 299-a states “an
acknowledgment or proof made pursuant to the provisions of section two hundred ninety-
nine of this chapter may be taken in the manner prescribed either by the laws of the state
of New York or by the laws of the state, District of Columbia, territory, possession,
dependency, or other place where the acknowledgment or proof is taken. The
acknowledgment or proof, if taken in the manner prescribed by such state, District of
Columbia, territory, possession, dependency, or other place, must be accompanied by a
certificate to the effect that it conforms with such laws.” Such certificate may be made by
attorneys admitted in New York or other place where the acknowledgment or proof is
taken or any other person deemed qualified by any court of the state of New York.
Affidavits Lack Personal Knowledge
8. The Parrish affid. and Beat Robinson’s affidavit in support of plaintiff’s
cross-motion sworn to on 30th day of March, 2020 both fail to comply with CPLR
requirements. The cross-motion fails to provide any supporting documentation for the
basis for which Suzanne Parrish and Beata Robinson have any personal knowledge of the
alleged facts contained in their respective affidavits. In motion practice when relying on
alleged facts a party must submit an affidavit from an individual with personal
knowledge of the alleged facts. See, e.g., Mitchell v Mid-Hudson Med. Assocs., 624
N.Y.S.2d 70 (3d Dep’t 1995); Hunter v Enquirer/Star, Inc., 619 N.Y.S.2d 268 (1st Dep’t
1994); Beverage Distribs. v Schenley Indus., 547 N.Y.S.2d 323 (1st Dep’t 1989). The
affidavit submitted from such individual must make sufficient factual allegations; it must
do more than merely make conclusory allegations or "vague assertion[s]." National
Recovery Sys. v Weiss, 641 N.Y.S.2d 296 (1st Dep’t 1996). An affidavit by someone
3
3 of 8
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 08/24/2020 04:57 PM INDEX NO. 510798/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 116 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/24/2020
without personal knowledge is of no effect and cannot serve as a basis for a judgment.
See Peacock v. Kalikow, 658 N.Y.S.2d 7, 8 (1st Dep’t 1997); see also Cooper v.
Badruddin, 597 N.Y.S.2d 206, 207 (3d Dep’t 1993).
9. The cross-motion fails to provide any supporting documentation for the
basis for which Suzanne Parrish and Beata Robinson have any such personal knowledge,
rather both affidavits are based on the deponent’s “review of the documents referenced.”
Improper Certification of ELANY Letter
10. The ELANY letter, submitted as exhibit 17 to the Supplemental
Affirmation of Debra Krebs, Esq. in Opposition to Motion and in Support of Cross-
Motion dated April 15, 2020 [omitted in notice of cross-motion], as a letter from a New
York government agency cannot be used in the motion sequence as it fails the evidence
requirements of the CPLR. Exhibit 17 fails to meet either CPLR §4518, CPLR §4520 or
CPLR §4521 as there is no certificate or affidavit affixed as required to the exhibit from a
public officer. Preferred Mut. Ins. Co. v Donnelly, 974 N.Y.S.2d 682 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th
Dep't 2013), aff'd, 985 N.Y.S.2d 470 (N.Y. 2014); Lodato v Greyhawk N. Am., LLC, 834
N.Y.S.2d 239 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2007); Moodie v American Casualty Co., 281
N.Y.S.2d 709 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 1967).
II. MOTION SEQUENCE
11. Plaintiff is precluded from seeking their first requested relief. Under the
doctrine of collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, a party may not "relitigat[e] in a
subsequent action or proceeding an issue clearly raised in a prior action or proceeding
and decided against that party or those in privity, whether or not the tribunals or causes of
action are the same." Ryan v New York Tel. Co., 62 NY2d 494, 500. Collateral estoppel
4
4 of 8
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 08/24/2020 04:57 PM INDEX NO. 510798/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 116 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/24/2020
applies if the issue sought to be precluded is identical to a material issue necessarily
decided in a prior proceeding; and there was a full and fair opportunity to contest the
issue. Jeffreys v Griffin, 1 NY3d 34, 39; see Ryan, 62 NY2d at 500-501.
12. Plaintiff attempts to indirectly restore its motion sequence through the first
requested relief, and directly by its second requested relief. CPLR §2221(d)(3) states that
a motion to reargue “shall be made within thirty days after service of a copy of the order
determining the prior motion and written notice of its entry.” The plaintiff’s omnibus
Motion to Dismiss and/or Reargue filed August 28, 2019 (“Plaintiff’s Omnibus Motion”),
regarding this courts Decision and Order dated July 2, 2019 entered July 23, 2019. (See
Exhibit E NY St Cts Elec Filing [NYSCEF] Doc. No. 39, Decision and Order on
Motion); (NYSCEF Doc. No. 52, notice of entry of court order) (“Decision and Order”).
L. Blake Morris, Esq. Defendant Affm dated January 9, 2020 [NYSCEF] Doc. No. 74.
The plaintiff’s failed to present for judicial determination Plaintiff’s Omnibus Motion
regarding the Decision and Order before more than thirty days as required. Defendant
refers to the plaintiff’s sequences of events. See Debra M. Krebs, Esq. Affirmation in
Opposition of Defendant’s Motion and in Support of Plaintiff’s Cross-motion dated
March 31, 2020 discussion of events paragraph 10, 11, 13-21.
13. The Plaintiff’s Omnibus Motion regarding the Decision and Order is the
subject of a perfected and opposed appeal filed August 6, 2020. Oral argument
notification pending, Docket No.: 2019-10220.
14. Plaintiff offered affidavits and affirmations that lack the CPLR
requirements to be properly before the court. Supra Part I. The plaintiff fails to provide
any reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts in their prior motion.
5
5 of 8
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 08/24/2020 04:57 PM INDEX NO. 510798/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 116 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/24/2020
Further, such a motion is stale as it has passed the 30 days required by CPLR, and it is
anticipatorily moot when this Court dismisses the complaint and may grant leave to
amend per plaintiff’s request.
III. THE ACTION SHOULD BE DISMISSED BECAUSE PLAINTIFF’S BROKER
DID NOT DO THEIR DUE DILIGENCE
15. As stated memorandum of law in the motion in chief, Plaintiff’s complaint
is defective. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that Atlantic Casualty is “duly authorized
to issue policies of insurance in the State of New York.” The complaint also alleges
that the plaintiff “provided certain commercial general liability insurance coverage to the
Defendant under Policy L146001424-1 and L146001424-2 for the effective dates of April
17, 2016 to April 17, 2018.” See Cmplt para. 3. Plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed
because the plaintiff failed to allege the requirements under New York Insurance Law for
excess line carriers when it issued these policies to Eastern Fruit. See Memorandum of
Law in Support of Eastern Fruit’s Motion to Dismiss page four for further discussion.
16. Under Insurance Law § 107(a)(10) an authorized insurer means:
“an insurer authorized… to do an insurance business in this state in
compliance with this chapter, by reason of a license so to do issued and in
force pursuant to the laws of this state or of a corporate charter granted
and in force pursuant to the laws of this state, but not including any
insurer herein exempted from compliance with the requirement that it
obtain a license to do business.”
Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion page 13.
17. Based upon the documents submitted, all parties are in agreement as the
Parrish affid. alleges in paragraph two that plaintiff is “an insurance carrier which
provides coverage on an admitted basis in its home state, North Carolina, and on a
non-admitted basis in the remaining states, including New York.”
6
6 of 8
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 08/24/2020 04:57 PM INDEX NO. 510798/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 116 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/24/2020
Defendant Suffers Prejudice When Plaintiff Wrongly Alleges Authorization
18. CPLR 3013 provides that "[s]tatements in a pleading shall be sufficiently
particular to give the court and parties notice of the transactions, occurrences, or series of
transactions or occurrences, intended to be proved and the material elements of each
cause of action or defense." Under this section, "[a] complaint is insufficient if based
solely on conclusory statements, unsupported by factual allegations." Melito v
Interboro—Mutual Indem. Ins. Co., 73 AD2d 819, 820 (4th Dept. 1979).
19. Defendant suffers prejudice when plaintiff wrongly alleges in its
complaint paragraph one that it is “duly authorized,” when it is not. Plaintiff never had or
currently was “in compliance with this chapter, by a reason of license….” Insurance Law
107(a)(10). The plaintiff is cloaking itself with the imprimatur of legitimacy, reluctant to
shed this cloak as plaintiff understands its true value and cannot demonstrate any legal
prejudice for its removal.
Wherefore, defendant respectfully requests that this Court issue an order
dismissing the complaint with defendant to retain the $500 previously posted as security
for costs that is being held by defendant counsel in escrow; denying the cross motion
requested relief; or in the alternative granting leave to amend the complaint as requested
by plaintiff with costs and disbursements of this action and for such other and further
relief as to this Court may seem just and proper.
7
7 of 8
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 08/24/2020 04:57 PM INDEX NO. 510798/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 116 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/24/2020
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
August 24, 2020
L. Blake Morris, Esq.
Attorney for Defendant
Office and Post Office Address
1214 Cortelyou Rd.
Brooklyn, NY 11218-5404
Tel. # (718) 826-8401
Attorneys for Plaintiff:
Debra Krebs, Esq.
Keidel, Weldon et al.
925 Westchester Ave
Room. 400
White Plains, NY 10604
914-948-7000 ext. 130
8
8 of 8
Preview
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 08/24/2020 04:57 PM INDEX NO. 510798/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 116 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/24/2020 Supreme Court of the State of New York COUNTY OF KINGS ------------------------------------------------------------- X Index No. 510798/2018 Atlantic Casualty Insurance Company, : IAS Part: 81 : Hon.: J. Carl J. Landicino Plaintiff, : : DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO - against - : PLAINTIFF’S CROSS-MOTION AND : REPLY Eastern Fruit & Vegetables, Inc., : : Defendant. : ------------------------------------------------------------- X L. Blake Morris, an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of New York, affirms pursuant to CPLR § 2106 under the penalty of perjury that: 1. Your affiant is the attorney for the defendant in this instant action. 2. I submit this opposition to plaintiff’s cross-motion as to the relief requested therein as stated as follows: (1) dismiss defendant’s second and sixth affirmative defenses, (2) restore Motion Sequence 03 and (3) granting such other and further relief as this Court may deem just, equitable and proper (footnote one states that further relief could be leave to amend complaint). 3. As to the third plaintiff requested relief; defendant moves to dismiss the complaint and not opposed to the Court also granting leave to amend pursuant to plaintiff’s request. I. PLAINTIFF’S CROSS-MOTION IN SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION WITH SUPPORTING PAPERS FAILS TO COMPLY WITH CPLR REQUIREMENTS AND NOT PROPERLY BEFORE THE COURT Defective (Cross) Notice of Motion 4. With respect to motion practice, 22 NYCRR §202.7(a) states in relevant part that “[t]here shall be compliance with the procedures prescribed in the CPLR for the bringing of motions” and that “except [with respect to orders to show cause], no motion 1 of 8 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 08/24/2020 04:57 PM INDEX NO. 510798/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 116 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/24/2020 shall be filed with the court unless there have been served and filed with the motion papers . . . a notice of motion.” CPLR §2211 states that a “motion is an application for an order” and a “motion on notice is made [only] when a notice of the motion or an order to show cause is served.” More specifically, CPLR §2214(a) requires that a “notice of motion shall specify the time and place of the hearing on the motion, the supporting papers upon which the motion is based, the relief demanded and the grounds therefore” (emphasis added). Phoenix Enterprises Ltd. Partnership v Insurance Co. of North America, 515 N.Y.S.2d 443 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 1987). 5. The plaintiff notice of cross motion in its recitals of supporting papers fails to include the dates of execution of those supporting papers and/or fails to mention other supporting papers including the grounds for relief therefore. This failure precludes the granting by the Court of any affirmative relief in favor of plaintiff on the basis of those supporting papers. Particularity of Affidavits Irregularity Certificate of Conformity Omission 6. Suzanne Parrish affidavit in support of plaintiff’s cross-motion sworn to on the second day of June, 2020 (“Parrish affid.”) contains an out of state notary omitting the certificate of conformity. CPLR 2309(c) states “an oath or affirmation taken without the state shall be treated as if taken within the state if it is accompanied by such certificate or certificates as would be required to entitle a deed acknowledged without the state to be recorded within the state if such deed had been acknowledged before the officer who administered the oath or affirmation.” 2 2 of 8 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 08/24/2020 04:57 PM INDEX NO. 510798/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 116 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/24/2020 7. With regard to the certificate, Real Property Law § 299-a states “an acknowledgment or proof made pursuant to the provisions of section two hundred ninety- nine of this chapter may be taken in the manner prescribed either by the laws of the state of New York or by the laws of the state, District of Columbia, territory, possession, dependency, or other place where the acknowledgment or proof is taken. The acknowledgment or proof, if taken in the manner prescribed by such state, District of Columbia, territory, possession, dependency, or other place, must be accompanied by a certificate to the effect that it conforms with such laws.” Such certificate may be made by attorneys admitted in New York or other place where the acknowledgment or proof is taken or any other person deemed qualified by any court of the state of New York. Affidavits Lack Personal Knowledge 8. The Parrish affid. and Beat Robinson’s affidavit in support of plaintiff’s cross-motion sworn to on 30th day of March, 2020 both fail to comply with CPLR requirements. The cross-motion fails to provide any supporting documentation for the basis for which Suzanne Parrish and Beata Robinson have any personal knowledge of the alleged facts contained in their respective affidavits. In motion practice when relying on alleged facts a party must submit an affidavit from an individual with personal knowledge of the alleged facts. See, e.g., Mitchell v Mid-Hudson Med. Assocs., 624 N.Y.S.2d 70 (3d Dep’t 1995); Hunter v Enquirer/Star, Inc., 619 N.Y.S.2d 268 (1st Dep’t 1994); Beverage Distribs. v Schenley Indus., 547 N.Y.S.2d 323 (1st Dep’t 1989). The affidavit submitted from such individual must make sufficient factual allegations; it must do more than merely make conclusory allegations or "vague assertion[s]." National Recovery Sys. v Weiss, 641 N.Y.S.2d 296 (1st Dep’t 1996). An affidavit by someone 3 3 of 8 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 08/24/2020 04:57 PM INDEX NO. 510798/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 116 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/24/2020 without personal knowledge is of no effect and cannot serve as a basis for a judgment. See Peacock v. Kalikow, 658 N.Y.S.2d 7, 8 (1st Dep’t 1997); see also Cooper v. Badruddin, 597 N.Y.S.2d 206, 207 (3d Dep’t 1993). 9. The cross-motion fails to provide any supporting documentation for the basis for which Suzanne Parrish and Beata Robinson have any such personal knowledge, rather both affidavits are based on the deponent’s “review of the documents referenced.” Improper Certification of ELANY Letter 10. The ELANY letter, submitted as exhibit 17 to the Supplemental Affirmation of Debra Krebs, Esq. in Opposition to Motion and in Support of Cross- Motion dated April 15, 2020 [omitted in notice of cross-motion], as a letter from a New York government agency cannot be used in the motion sequence as it fails the evidence requirements of the CPLR. Exhibit 17 fails to meet either CPLR §4518, CPLR §4520 or CPLR §4521 as there is no certificate or affidavit affixed as required to the exhibit from a public officer. Preferred Mut. Ins. Co. v Donnelly, 974 N.Y.S.2d 682 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2013), aff'd, 985 N.Y.S.2d 470 (N.Y. 2014); Lodato v Greyhawk N. Am., LLC, 834 N.Y.S.2d 239 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2007); Moodie v American Casualty Co., 281 N.Y.S.2d 709 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 1967). II. MOTION SEQUENCE 11. Plaintiff is precluded from seeking their first requested relief. Under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, a party may not "relitigat[e] in a subsequent action or proceeding an issue clearly raised in a prior action or proceeding and decided against that party or those in privity, whether or not the tribunals or causes of action are the same." Ryan v New York Tel. Co., 62 NY2d 494, 500. Collateral estoppel 4 4 of 8 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 08/24/2020 04:57 PM INDEX NO. 510798/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 116 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/24/2020 applies if the issue sought to be precluded is identical to a material issue necessarily decided in a prior proceeding; and there was a full and fair opportunity to contest the issue. Jeffreys v Griffin, 1 NY3d 34, 39; see Ryan, 62 NY2d at 500-501. 12. Plaintiff attempts to indirectly restore its motion sequence through the first requested relief, and directly by its second requested relief. CPLR §2221(d)(3) states that a motion to reargue “shall be made within thirty days after service of a copy of the order determining the prior motion and written notice of its entry.” The plaintiff’s omnibus Motion to Dismiss and/or Reargue filed August 28, 2019 (“Plaintiff’s Omnibus Motion”), regarding this courts Decision and Order dated July 2, 2019 entered July 23, 2019. (See Exhibit E NY St Cts Elec Filing [NYSCEF] Doc. No. 39, Decision and Order on Motion); (NYSCEF Doc. No. 52, notice of entry of court order) (“Decision and Order”). L. Blake Morris, Esq. Defendant Affm dated January 9, 2020 [NYSCEF] Doc. No. 74. The plaintiff’s failed to present for judicial determination Plaintiff’s Omnibus Motion regarding the Decision and Order before more than thirty days as required. Defendant refers to the plaintiff’s sequences of events. See Debra M. Krebs, Esq. Affirmation in Opposition of Defendant’s Motion and in Support of Plaintiff’s Cross-motion dated March 31, 2020 discussion of events paragraph 10, 11, 13-21. 13. The Plaintiff’s Omnibus Motion regarding the Decision and Order is the subject of a perfected and opposed appeal filed August 6, 2020. Oral argument notification pending, Docket No.: 2019-10220. 14. Plaintiff offered affidavits and affirmations that lack the CPLR requirements to be properly before the court. Supra Part I. The plaintiff fails to provide any reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts in their prior motion. 5 5 of 8 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 08/24/2020 04:57 PM INDEX NO. 510798/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 116 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/24/2020 Further, such a motion is stale as it has passed the 30 days required by CPLR, and it is anticipatorily moot when this Court dismisses the complaint and may grant leave to amend per plaintiff’s request. III. THE ACTION SHOULD BE DISMISSED BECAUSE PLAINTIFF’S BROKER DID NOT DO THEIR DUE DILIGENCE 15. As stated memorandum of law in the motion in chief, Plaintiff’s complaint is defective. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that Atlantic Casualty is “duly authorized to issue policies of insurance in the State of New York.” The complaint also alleges that the plaintiff “provided certain commercial general liability insurance coverage to the Defendant under Policy L146001424-1 and L146001424-2 for the effective dates of April 17, 2016 to April 17, 2018.” See Cmplt para. 3. Plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed because the plaintiff failed to allege the requirements under New York Insurance Law for excess line carriers when it issued these policies to Eastern Fruit. See Memorandum of Law in Support of Eastern Fruit’s Motion to Dismiss page four for further discussion. 16. Under Insurance Law § 107(a)(10) an authorized insurer means: “an insurer authorized… to do an insurance business in this state in compliance with this chapter, by reason of a license so to do issued and in force pursuant to the laws of this state or of a corporate charter granted and in force pursuant to the laws of this state, but not including any insurer herein exempted from compliance with the requirement that it obtain a license to do business.” Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion page 13. 17. Based upon the documents submitted, all parties are in agreement as the Parrish affid. alleges in paragraph two that plaintiff is “an insurance carrier which provides coverage on an admitted basis in its home state, North Carolina, and on a non-admitted basis in the remaining states, including New York.” 6 6 of 8 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 08/24/2020 04:57 PM INDEX NO. 510798/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 116 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/24/2020 Defendant Suffers Prejudice When Plaintiff Wrongly Alleges Authorization 18. CPLR 3013 provides that "[s]tatements in a pleading shall be sufficiently particular to give the court and parties notice of the transactions, occurrences, or series of transactions or occurrences, intended to be proved and the material elements of each cause of action or defense." Under this section, "[a] complaint is insufficient if based solely on conclusory statements, unsupported by factual allegations." Melito v Interboro—Mutual Indem. Ins. Co., 73 AD2d 819, 820 (4th Dept. 1979). 19. Defendant suffers prejudice when plaintiff wrongly alleges in its complaint paragraph one that it is “duly authorized,” when it is not. Plaintiff never had or currently was “in compliance with this chapter, by a reason of license….” Insurance Law 107(a)(10). The plaintiff is cloaking itself with the imprimatur of legitimacy, reluctant to shed this cloak as plaintiff understands its true value and cannot demonstrate any legal prejudice for its removal. Wherefore, defendant respectfully requests that this Court issue an order dismissing the complaint with defendant to retain the $500 previously posted as security for costs that is being held by defendant counsel in escrow; denying the cross motion requested relief; or in the alternative granting leave to amend the complaint as requested by plaintiff with costs and disbursements of this action and for such other and further relief as to this Court may seem just and proper. 7 7 of 8 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 08/24/2020 04:57 PM INDEX NO. 510798/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 116 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/24/2020 Dated: Brooklyn, New York August 24, 2020 L. Blake Morris, Esq. Attorney for Defendant Office and Post Office Address 1214 Cortelyou Rd. Brooklyn, NY 11218-5404 Tel. # (718) 826-8401 Attorneys for Plaintiff: Debra Krebs, Esq. Keidel, Weldon et al. 925 Westchester Ave Room. 400 White Plains, NY 10604 914-948-7000 ext. 130 8 8 of 8