Atlantic Mutual Insurance v. Elliana Properties

261 A.D.2d 296, 691 N.Y.S.2d 412, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5769
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 25, 1999
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 261 A.D.2d 296 (Atlantic Mutual Insurance v. Elliana Properties) 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
Atlantic Mutual Insurance v. Elliana Properties, 261 A.D.2d 296, 691 N.Y.S.2d 412, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5769 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Braun, J.), entered February 4, 1998, which, insofar as appealed from, granted defendants-respondents’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff insurer, suing as subrogee of its insured, the tenant of premises leased from defendant landlords, seeks to recover the insurance proceeds that plaintiff paid the tenant for property damage and other losses that allegedly were caused by the unlicensed contractor defendants had hired to renovate the apartment above the leased premises, during which work a water pipe was ruptured. We agree with the motion court that plaintiffs claim is barred by the provision of the lease waiving rights of subrogation. Contrary to plaintiffs arguments, the renovation of the apartment above the leased premises was not “wholly outside the scope of the landlord and tenant relationship” (Interested Underwriters at Lloyds v Ducor’s, Inc., 103 AD2d 76, 77, affd 65 NY2d 647), and thus the losses claimed to have been caused by defendants’ negligence in contracting for such work fall within the scope of the lease’s broad waiver of subrogation provision (see, Kaf-Kaf, Inc. v Rodless Decorations, 90 NY2d 654). Since the waiver of subrogation provision precludes plaintiffs maintenance of the instant action, we need not determine whether the action is also barred by the antisubrogation rule. Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Rosenberger, Williams, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

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

Related

Jewelers Mut.l Ins. Co. v. Forty Seventh Fifth Co. LLC
2025 NY Slip Op 30588(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2025)
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Pulse Creative, LLC
2022 NY Slip Op 05934 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Footlocker, Inc. v. KK&J, LLC
69 A.D.3d 481 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
H & M Hennes & Mauritz LP v. Skanska USA Building, Inc.
617 F. Supp. 2d 152 (E.D. New York, 2008)
Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Insurance v. Woodstock '99 LLC
6 A.D.3d 1085 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Atlantic Mutual Insurance v. Soiefer Bros. Realty Corp.
281 A.D.2d 441 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
261 A.D.2d 296, 691 N.Y.S.2d 412, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5769, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/atlantic-mutual-insurance-v-elliana-properties-nyappdiv-1999.