Golden Ins. Co. v. Vogrin & Frimet, LLP
Opinion
Golden Ins. Co. v Vogrin & Frimet, LLP 2025 NY Slip Op 31102(U)
April 4, 2025
Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 162162/2023 Judge: Mary V. Rosado
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication.
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 80 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2025
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY
PRESENT: HON. MARY V. ROSADO PART 33M Justice
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --------------X INDEX NO. 162162/2023 GOLDEN INSURANCE COMPANY, A RISK RETENTION MOTION DATE 03/12/2024 GROUP,
Plaintiff, MOTION SEQ. NO. 002
-v-
DECISION + ORDER ON
VOGRIN & FRIMET, LLP, STALKER, P.C.
MOTION
Defendant.
- - - - - - - - --------------X
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 21, 22, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69, 70, 74, 78 were read on this motion to/for DISMISSAL
Upon the foregoing documents, and after oral argument, which took place on January 14, 2025, where Evan S. Fensterstock, Esq. appeared for Plaintiff Golden Insurance Company, a Risk Retention Group ("Plaintiff'), Corey Cohen, Esq. appeared for Defendant Vogrin & Frimet LLP ("Vogrin & Frimet") and Nicholas Goodman, Esq. appeared for Defendant Stalker, P.C. ("Stalker") (collectively "Defendants"), Stalker's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint pursuant to CPLR 321 l(a)(7) is granted in part and denied in part.
I. Background
Plaintiff issued a commercial general liability insurance policy (the "Policy") to non-party Ingrid Home LLC ("Ingrid"). Plaintiff alleges that pursuant to the terms of the Policy, damages for bodily injury were only covered if incurred at a construction project at 356 E. 8th Street, New York, NY 10009 (the "Premises"). On January 14, 2016, Ingrid was notified of an accident on the Premises involving a worker, Luis Alberto Pomboza, ("Pomboza"). On January 20, 2016, Ingrid's
162162/2023 GOLDEN INSURANCE COMPANY, A RISK RETENTION GROUP vs. VOGRIN & Page 1 of 5 FRIMET, LLP ET AL Motion No. 002
1 of 5
[* 1]
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 80 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2025
counsel forwarded that letter to Plaintiff and Plaintiffs claim administrator. On March 4, 2016, Plaintiffs counsel, denied coverage.
On December 21, 2017, Pomboza's estate commenced a lawsuit against Ingrid and others (the "Underlying Lawsuit"). In January 2018, Ingrid notified Plaintiff of the Complaint, and Plaintiff issued a reservation of rights letter acknowledging its obligation to defend Ingrid subject to the right to disclaim coverage. Subsequently, Plaintiff retained Defendants to prosecute declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration no coverage was owed to Ingrid in the Underlying Lawsuit. The declaratory judgment action was filed on February 10, 2020 (the "Declaratory Judgment Action"). Ingrid asserted as an affirmative defense that Plaintiff failed to comply with§ 3420(d)(2).
In the Declaratory Judgment Action, Defendants moved for summary judgment on behalf of Plaintiff while Ingrid also moved for summary judgment. Defendants failed to raise precedent holding that risk retention groups are not bound by the requirements of § 3420(d)(2). The complaint was dismissed based on Plaintiffs alleged failure to comply with § 3420(d)(2). A motion to reconsider was denied because Defendants raised Court of Appeals precedent for the first time on reargument. The Second Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision. Because the Declaratory Judgment Action failed, Plaintiff settled the Underlying Action for $900,000. Plaintiff now sues Defendants alleging legal malpractice and negligence. In this motion, Stalker moves to dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint pursuant to CPLR 321 l(a)(7).
II. Discussion
A. Standard
When reviewing a pre-answer motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the Court must give the Plaintiff the benefit of all favorable inferences which may be drawn from the pleadings
162162/2023 GOLDEN INSURANCE COMPANY, A RISK RETENTION GROUP vs. VOGRIN & Page 2 of 5 FRIMET, LLP ET AL Motion No. 002
[* 2] 2 of 5
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 80 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2025
and determines only whether the alleged facts fit within any cognizable legal theory (Sassi v Mobile Life Support Services, Inc., 37 NY3d 236, 239 [2021 ]). All factual allegations must be accepted as true (Allianz Underwriters Ins. Co. v Landmark Ins. Co., 13 AD3d 172, 174 [1st Dept 2004]).
B. Legal Malpractice
Stalker's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's legal malpractice claim is denied. The crux of Stalker's motion is that Plaintiff fails to allege adequately that Defendants' failure to raise the operative Court of Appeals case, Nadkos, Inc. v Preferred Contrs. Ins. Co. Risk Retention Group LLC, 34 NY3d 1 (2019), proximately caused the damages. They argue even had Defendants raised Nadkos, Defendants may still have lost based on Ingrid Homes' other defenses, including waiver and estoppel. They argue even had Defendants raised Nadkos, Defendants may still have lost based on Ingrid's other defenses, including waiver and estoppel. However, this argument is contrary to the Southern District of New York's decision on the motion for summary judgment (NYSCEF Doc. 64).
The decisions by the Southern District of New York and the Second Circuit framed the dispositive issue as one of compliance with Insurance Law § 3420(d)(2). Judge Lewis Liman explicitly stated that Plaintiff "failed to provide a timely disclaimer under the New York Insurance Law, and thus may not now issue a disclaimer. This is not a matter of waiver." On appeal, the Second Circuit's decision focused solely on timely disclaimer under Insurance Law§ 3420(d)(2) and made no mention of the common law doctrines of waiver and estoppel (see Golden Ins. Co. v Ingrid House LLC, 2022 WL 2165252 at *2-3 [2d Cir. 2022]). Moreover, the Second Circuit explicitly declined to address the application of Nadkos, Inc. v Preferred Contrs. Ins. Co. Risk
162162/2023 GOLDEN INSURANCE COMPANY, A RISK RETENTION GROUP vs. VOGRIN & Page 3 of 5 FRIMET, LLP ET AL Motion No. 002
3 of 5
[* 3]
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 80 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2025
Retention Group LLC, 34 NY3d 1 (2019) because it was raised for the first time on a motion to reconsider (Golden, supra at *4).
For purposes of a pre-answer motion to dismiss, the pleadings and annexed supporting documents show that Plaintiffs allegations adequately allege proximate cause and do not fall into the realm of mere speculation. While Defendants are welcome to defend proximate cause pursuant to the "case within a case" doctrine (see, e.g. Carasco v Schlesinger, 222 AD3d 476,477 [1st Dept 2023]), which may ultimately be successful on a subsequent motion for summary judgment, at this juncture, Defendants' arguments are insufficient to win a pre-answer motion to dismiss.
C. Negligence
Stalker's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs second cause of action alleging ordinary negligence is granted. The ordinary negligence claim, which seeks the same damages and arises from the same set of facts of Plaintiffs legal malpractice claim, is duplicative (see IMP. Plumbing & Heating Corp. v Munzer & Saunders, LLP, 199 AD3d 569,571 [1st Dept 2021] citing Sun Graphics Corp. v Levy, Davis & Maher, LLP, 94 AD3d 669, 669 [1 st Dept 2012]). Therefore, the cause of action alleging ordinary negligence is dismissed.
Accordingly, it is hereby, ORDERED that Defendant Stalker, P.C.'s motion to dismiss Plaintiff Golden Insurance Company, a Risk Retention Group's Complaint is granted in part and denied in part; and it is further
ORDERED that Defendant Stalker P.C.'s motion to dismiss Plaintiff Golden Insurance Company, a Risk Retention Group's Complaint is granted solely to the extent that Plaintiffs second cause of action alleging ordinary negligence is dismissed, and the motion is otherwise denied; and it is further
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
2025 NY Slip Op 31102(U) (Golden Ins. Co. v. Vogrin & Frimet, LLP) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.