| Baez v First Liberty Ins. Corp. |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 04118 [95 AD3d 1250] |
| May 30, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Nuris Baez, Respondent, v First Liberty InsuranceCorporation, Appellant. |
—[*1] Dina M. DeGiorgio (John V. Decolator, Garden City, N.Y., of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action, inter alia, to recover under an insurance policy, the defendant appeals, as limitedby its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Diamond, J.), datedMarch 1, 2011, as, upon denying those branches of the plaintiff's cross motion which were forsummary judgment on the first and fourth causes of action, determined that the defendant'sdisclaimer of coverage was untimely.
Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.
The plaintiff sought coverage under an insurance policy issued by the defendant, and whenthe defendant disclaimed coverage, the plaintiff commenced this action to recover under thepolicy. Upon denying those branches of the plaintiff's cross motion which were for summaryjudgment on the first and fourth causes of action, the Supreme Court, in an order dated March 1,2011, inter alia, determined that the defendant's disclaimer of coverage was untimely. Thedefendant appeals from so much of the order as made that determination. The appeal must bedismissed, however, as findings of fact and conclusions of law are not independently appealable(see Soehngen v Soehngen, 58AD3d 829, 830 [2009]; Higgins vHiggins, 50 AD3d 852, 852 [2008]; Cosh v Cosh, 45 AD3d 798, 799 [2007]; Griggs v Griggs, 44 AD3d 710,711 [2007]; ELRAC, Inc. v Belessis, 303 AD2d 445, 446 [2003]; Naar v Litwak &Co., 260 AD2d 613, 614 [1999]).
To the extent that the defendant raises an argument on appeal regarding its motion for leaveto amend its answer, that motion was not addressed by the Supreme Court, and, thus, remainspending and undecided (see Katz v Katz, 68 AD2d 536, 542-543 [1979]). Angiolillo,J.P., Lott, Roman and Miller, JJ., concur.