Bruno v. Home Mutual Insurance

91 A.D.2d 1169, 459 N.Y.S.2d 136, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16509
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 21, 1983
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 91 A.D.2d 1169 (Bruno v. Home Mutual 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
Bruno v. Home Mutual Insurance, 91 A.D.2d 1169, 459 N.Y.S.2d 136, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16509 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Opinion

— Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: Plaintiffs are the insured under a homeowner’s policy which was issued by defendant and was in effect when plaintiff’s home was burglarized in August, 1980. Defendant refused to pay the amount of the claimed loss. Plaintiffs’ first cause of action seeks $2,125.92 for damages to the dwelling and also seeks $39,954.60 for personal property alleged to be either damaged or missing. The first cause of action also asserts a claim for $20,000 in counsel fees. Plaintiffs’ second cause of action seeks damages of $500,000 for intentional infliction of severe emotional distress and, additionally, asks for punitive damages of $1,000,000 and counsel fees of $500,000. Special Term denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and granted defendant’s cross motion for partial summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ second cause of action and so much of plaintiffs’ first cause of action as sought counsel fees. We affirm. Although the showing made by defendant in response to plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment consists largely of inadmissible hearsay, the motion nonetheless was properly denied since what was taken in the burglary, and the value thereof, are known only to plaintiffs. “[I]f facts are peculiarly within the control or possession of the moving party and not available to the other party, the motion should be denied” (Matter of Mead v First Trust & Deposit Co., 60 AD2d 71, 78). Stripped of its otherwise unsupported language, plaintiffs’ second cause of action does nothing more than reassert the breach of contract claim. Plaintiffs have failed to offer evidentiary facts sufficient to demonstrate that defendant’s refusal to pay the claim is so egregious as to justify a claim for emotional injury (see Fischer v Maloney, 43 NY2d 553; O’Rourke v Pawling Sav. Bank, 80 AD2d 847, app dsmd 54 NY2d 641; Nestlerode v Federal Ins. Co., 66 AD2d 504, mot for lv to app den 48 NY2d 604) or so morally culpable as to support an award of punitive damages (see Hubbell v Trans World Life Ins. Co. of N. Y., 50 NY2d 899; Halpin v Prudential Ins. Co. of Amer., 48 NY2d 906; Janina Travel Bur. v Kalison, 72 AD2d 916, 917). It follows, of course, that plaintiffs may not be awarded counsel fees (see Royal Globe Ins. Co. v Chock Full O’Nuts Corp., 86 AD2d 315; see, also, Mighty Midgets v Centennial Ins. Co., 47 NY2d 12). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Kuszynski, J. — summary judgment.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Hancock, Jr., Doerr, Denman and Moule, JJ.

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

Related

Bergen v. the Standard Fire Insurance Co., No. Cv93 044099s (Dec. 31, 1997)
1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 12883 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1997)
Kindzierski v. Foster
217 A.D.2d 998 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
Carlos v. Rochester General Hospital
163 A.D.2d 894 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
Bloom v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance
161 A.D.2d 1047 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
Denkensohn v. Davenport
130 A.D.2d 860 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
City of Niagara Falls v. Hartford Fire Insurance
116 A.D.2d 1019 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
Roberts v. Auto-Owners Insurance
374 N.W.2d 905 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1985)
Uniland Development Co. v. Home Insurance
97 A.D.2d 973 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1983)
Welch v. Grant Development Co.
120 Misc. 2d 493 (New York Supreme Court, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
91 A.D.2d 1169, 459 N.Y.S.2d 136, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16509, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bruno-v-home-mutual-insurance-nyappdiv-1983.