| Burlington Ins. Co. v Casur Corp. |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 08951 [123 AD3d 965] |
| December 24, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| Burlington Insurance Company,Appellant, v Casur Corporation, Respondent. |
Soffer Rech & Borg, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Michael A. Borg of counsel), forappellant.
Kissel, Hirsch & Wilmer LLP, Tarrytown, N.Y. (Frederick Wilmer of counsel),for respondent.
In an action to recover unpaid insurance premiums, the plaintiff appeals from anorder of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brown, J.), entered May 14, 2014, whichdenied its motion for summary judgment on the complaint.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiff's motionfor summary judgment on the complaint is granted.
The plaintiff insurer established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter oflaw on the complaint by submitting the subject insurance policy, the audit statement, andthe affidavit of the plaintiff's accounts receivable and collections manager. Thesesubmissions demonstrated that, pursuant to an audit and revised audit, which wereconducted after expiration of the policy in accordance with the terms of the policy, thedefendant owed an additional $134,550 in premiums (see Evanston Ins. Co. v Po WingHong Food Mkt., Inc., 21 AD3d 333 [2005]; cf. Essex Ins. Co. v LarucciaConstr., Inc., 71 AD3d 818 [2010]; Safeguard Ins. Co. v Tetz &Sons, 271 AD2d 516 [2000]). In opposition, the defendant failed to raise a triableissue of fact.
To the extent that the defendant argues that the plaintiff's motion for summaryjudgment was premature, this contention is without merit. A party contending that amotion for summary judgment is premature is required to demonstrate that additionaldiscovery might lead to relevant evidence or that the facts essential to oppose the motionare exclusively within the knowledge and control of the movant (see CPLR 3212[f]; Singh v Avis Rent A CarSys., Inc., 119 AD3d 768 [2014]; Williams v Spencer-Hall, 113 AD3d 759 [2014]). "Themere hope or speculation that evidence sufficient to defeat a motion for summaryjudgment may be uncovered during the discovery process is insufficient to deny themotion" (Lopez v WS Distrib.,Inc., 34 AD3d 759, 760 [2006]; see Williams v Spencer-Hall, 113 AD3d 759 [2014]; Rungoo v Leary, 110 AD3d781 [2013]). Here, the defendant failed to indicate what evidence discovery mayuncover, in addition to what has already been produced.
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiff's motion for [*2]summary judgment on the complaint. Dillon, J.P.,Dickerson, Austin and Cohen, JJ., concur.