PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD, plf-res, v. STEVEN LEVITSKY def-ap

10760. PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD, plf-res, v. STEVEN LEVITSKY def-ap — The Wolford Law Firm LLP, Rochester (Michael R. Wolford of counsel), for ap — Wiggin and Dana LLP, New York (Jonathan M. Freiman of the bars of the States of Connecticut and Pennsylvania, admitted pro hac vice, of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lucy Billings, J.), entered February 11, 2013, which granted plaintiff insurer’s motion for summary judgment declaring that it was not obligated to defend or indemnify defendants, unanimously affirmed with costs.

The insurance policy at issue contains three notice provisions: one requiring notice of “any” circumstances which “may” give rise to a claim; a second, separate notice provision if a claim does result; and a third provision related to notice allowing an insured to “lock in” coverage for a circumstance that occurs during the policy period, even if the resulting claim doesn’t occur until after the policy period has ended. The notice of circumstance clause and the notice of claim clause, which are each independent conditions precedent to coverage, are unambiguous (see Sirignano v. Chicago Ins. Co., 192 F Supp 2d 199, 202 [SDNY 2000]; Bellefonte Ins. Co. v. Albert, P.C., 99 AD2d 947, 948 [1st Dept 1984]).