525 Fulton Street Holding Corp. v. Mission National Insurance

256 A.D.2d 243, 682 N.Y.S.2d 166, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13922
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 29, 1998
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 256 A.D.2d 243 (525 Fulton Street Holding Corp. v. Mission National Insurance) 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
525 Fulton Street Holding Corp. v. Mission National Insurance, 256 A.D.2d 243, 682 N.Y.S.2d 166, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13922 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered April 17, 1996, which, in a proceeding to recover for water damage under an all-risk insurance policy, denied plaintiff insured’s motion to reject the Referee’s report recommending denial of plaintiff’s claim, and granted defendant Liquidator’s cross motion to confirm the report, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The Referee correctly held that the burden is on plaintiff to prove that the water damage it sustained was caused by a “fortuitous” event within the meaning of the policy, and not on [244]*244defendant to prove the contrary (see, Avid Equities v Commerce & Indus. Ins. Co., 225 AD2d 446). The record supports the Referee’s finding that plaintiff failed to sustain this burden, plaintiffs attempt to show that pipe corrosion was the cause of the leak that caused the damage having been countered by defendant’s showing that pipe corrosion would have caused a slow leak detectable as it gradually grew larger and not the gushing of water that admittedly occurred, and that a valve at or near the source of the leak had been smashed with a blunt instrument. Plaintiffs only rejoinder to this evidence of external physical force, that the valve deformity was caused when plaintiffs plumber struck the valve with a chisel while making repairs, was rebutted, and at best raised an issue of credibility for the Referee (see, Freedman v Freedman, 211 AD2d 580). We have considered plaintiffs other arguments and find them to be unavailing. Concur — Lerner, P. J., Wallaeh, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

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

Related

40 Gardenville, LLC v. Travelers Property Casualty of America
387 F. Supp. 2d 205 (W.D. New York, 2005)
Chase Manhattan Bank v. New Hampshire Insurance
193 Misc. 2d 580 (New York Supreme Court, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
256 A.D.2d 243, 682 N.Y.S.2d 166, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13922, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/525-fulton-street-holding-corp-v-mission-national-insurance-nyappdiv-1998.