46th Street Development, LLC v. Marsh USA, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

46th Street Development, LLC v. Marsh USA, Inc.

100 A.D.3d 455, 953 N.Y.S.2d 500

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 13, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 100 A.D.3d 455 (46th Street Development, LLC v. Marsh USA, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

46th Street Development, LLC v. Marsh USA, Inc., 100 A.D.3d 455, 953 N.Y.S.2d 500 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered on or about August 25, 2011, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, deemed an appeal from the judgment, same court and Justice, entered October 18, 2011, dismissing the complaint (CFLR 5501 [c]), and, so considered, the judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Flaintiff failed to state a cause of action based on defendant’s failure to procure insurance coverage for a delay in obtaining temporary certificates of occupancy (TCO coverage) for the subject condominiums. Absent a specific request for the insurance, defendant, as broker, had no duty to obtain coverage (see Hoffend & Sons, Inc. v Rose & Kiernan, Inc., 7 NY3d 152, 157-158 [2006]). Here, there is no evidence that plaintiff specifically requested that defendant obtain TCO coverage. Nor was there a special relationship between the parties (see Murphy v Kuhn, 90 NY2d 266, 272 [1997]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Gonzalez, EJ., Saxe, Catterson, Acosta and Gische, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered on or about August 25, 2011, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, deemed an appeal from the judgment, same court and Justice, entered October 18, 2011, dismissing the complaint (CFLR 5501 [c]), and, so considered, the judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Flaintiff failed to state a cause of action based on defendant’s failure to procure insurance coverage for a delay in obtaining temporary certificates of occupancy (TCO coverage) for the subject condominiums. Absent a specific request for the insurance, defendant, as broker, had no duty to obtain coverage (see Hoffend & Sons, Inc. v Rose & Kiernan, Inc., 7 NY3d 152, 157-158 [2006]). Here, there is no evidence that plaintiff specifically requested that defendant obtain TCO coverage. Nor was there a special relationship between the parties (see Murphy v Kuhn, 90 NY2d 266, 272 [1997]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Gonzalez, EJ., Saxe, Catterson, Acosta and Gische, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 A.D.3d 455, 953 N.Y.S.2d 500, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/46th-street-development-llc-v-marsh-usa-inc-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack