Govea v Albert
2025 NY Slip Op 32312(U)
June 26, 2025
Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: Index No. 507729/2023 Judge: Anne J. Swern
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.
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 06/30/2025 12:40 PM INDEX NO. 507729/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 67 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/30/2025
At an IAS Trial Term, Part 75 ofthe Supreme Courtofthe State of New York, Kings County, at the Courthouse located at.
360Adains Street, Brooklyn, New Yorkon the 26th day ofJune 2025
PRE S ENT: HON.ANNEJ. SWERN, J.S.C.
DECISION &·ORDER
EVELYN GOVEA, EDWARD CRUZ and RAYMOND Index No.: 507729/2023 ORTIZ, MERCEDES TORIBIO, IRIS NIEVES, AND ROBERT NIEVES, Calendar No,: 20, 21 & 22
Plaintif.i Motion Seq.: 001, 003 & 004 -against-·
MADELINE ALBERT,
Defendant.
MADELINE ALBERT,
Third-PartyPlaintif.i
-against-
NEW YORK PROPERTY INSURANCE UNDERWRITING ASSOCIATION,
Third-Party Defendant.
Recitationofthefollowingpapets as.required by CPLR.2219(a):
Papers
N:umbered
MS. 001 NYPIUA's Notice ofMotion, Affirtr1ation, Metr1orandum of Law and Bxhibits{NYSCEF 9-15) ................................. 1; 2 Memorandum ofLaw in Opposition (NYSCEF 41) ......... ,...................... .... ,.3 Memorandum of Lawin Reply (NYSCEF 60) ..-............... ;....•.... ;......... ;.. ,.... .A
MS. 003 NYPIUA' s Notice ofMotiori, Affirmation, Memorandum ofLaw and Exhibits (NYSCEF 44, 47-52) .. ,............... ;...... 5, 6 Memorlmduin t,f Law in. Opposition (NYSCEF 62) ...................................... :7 Memorandum ofLawinReply (NYSCEF 6i)..... ,.......... ,.............................. 8
50772912023
Pagel o/13
1 of 13
[* 1]
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 06/30/2025 12:40 PM INDEX NO. 507729/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 67 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/30/2025
MS 004 NYPIUA's Notice of Motion, Affirmation, Memorandum of Law and Exhibits (NYSCEF 45, 53'-58) ................. ,..... 9, 10 Memorandum of Law in Opposition{NYSCEF 63} ..... ;..... ;.,; ..................... U Memorandum of Lawin Reply (NYSCEF64) .............................................. 12
Upon the foregoing papers, the decision and order ofthe Courtis as follows:
Introduction
The plaintiffs, who were tenants of defendant/third-party plaintiff, MadelineAlbert (Albert), commenced separate actions arising from a fire on 8/12/2022 at ,Albert's property
located at236 Montrose Avenue, Brooklyn, New York 11206 (property). The cause of the fire . .
allegedly resulted from faulty wiring. Albert insured the property with third-party defendant, New York Property UnderwtitingAssociation{NYPUIA). NYPUIA served a pre-answer motion to dlsmiss the third-party actions in each action pursuant to CPLR § 3211 [a] [1] and [7] on the policy provision that any legal action against NYPUIAarising out of the policy musthave been commenced within two.years.afterthe date of loss.
While the motions were pending, aU three actions wern consolidated in this action by an order dated 2/20/2025. The individual plaintiffs have not taken a positionon the motions. Procedural· History
a) Govea v. Albert Index #507729/2023.
Plaintiff Govea commencecl an action for property damage against Albert on 3/13/2023 (DOC .. l). 1 The complaint alleges causes ofaction for negligence, breach of warranty of habitability, constructive eviction, actual eviction, anc:l breach of contract to recover for property damagei lost wages and emotional damages (id.:,7), Albert wa~ servedwith the summons and corn.plaint on 4/lS/2023 (DOC. 2). On 6/12/2024, the parties executed .a stipulation extending
1 All references to NYSCEF in ibis.section refer to.Index #5Q7729/Z023.
5077i9/2023
Page2of13
2 of 13
[* 2]
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 06/30/2025 12:40 PM INDEX NO. 507729/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 67 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/30/2025
Albert's time to answer the complaintuntil 7/19/2024 (DOC. 3). An answer was served on 7/19/2024 (DOC. 4). A summons with interpleader complaint against NYPIUA was filed on 9/3/2024 (DOC. 2 and§) and served on the New York State Department ofFinancial Services, NYPIU A's registered agent, pursuant to Insurance Law § 1212 ·[a] on 10/21/:2024 (DOC. 7). The parties stipulated to extend NYPIUA's time to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint until 12/20/2024 (DOC 19). On 12/20/2024; NYPIUA served the pre-answer motion to dismiss the thfrd,.party action (DOC. 9).
b) Torbio v. Albert Index #526320/2023 PlaintiffToribio commenced an action for property damage against Albert on 9/ ll /2023 (QOC. 1). 2 The complaint alleges causes of action for negligence, breach of warranty of habitability, cortsttuctive eviction, actual eviction, and breach of contract to recover for property damage, lost wages and emotional damages (id. :if6). Albert was served with the summons and complaint ort 10/28/2023 (DOC. 2) and a motion for a default judgment on 3/14/2024 (DOC .. 9). The motion was denied. On 6/12/2024, the parties executed a stipulation extending Albert's time to answer the complaint until 7/19/2024 (DOC. 13). An answer was served on 7/19/2024 (DOC H). A summons with interpleader complaint against NYPIUAwas filed on 9/3/2024 (DOC 15 and .1§) and served on the New York State Department of Financial Services on 10/21/2024 (DOC.18). The parties stipulated to extend NYPIUA'stimeto answer or otherwise respond to the complaint until 12/20/2024 (DOC. 19). On 12/20/2024, NYPIUA served the pre-answer motion to dismiss the thl,rcl-party action (DOC. 20).
i All references to NYSC:EF in this section refer tq hldex #5263.20/202.3.
~().7729/2()23
Page3of13
3 of 13
[* 3]
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 06/30/2025 12:40 PM INDEX NO. 507729/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 67 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/30/2025
c) Nieves v. Albert Index #53 7425/2023 Plaintiff Nieves commenced an action for property damage against Albert on 12/21/20:H (DOC. 1).3 The compla~nt alleges causes of action for negligence, breach of warranty of habitability, constructive eviction, actual eviction, arid breach of con.tract to recoyer for property damage, lost wages, homelessness damages Etnd emotional damages (id. :,r6). Albert was served with the summons and cotrtplaintonl/8/2024 (DOC. 2) and amotion for a defaultjudgmt!nt on 3/25/2024 {DOC lO). The motion was denied. On 6/12/2024, the parties executed a stipulation extending Albert's timetoansv.rer the complaint until 7/19/2024 (DOC. 13} 4 Ail answer was served on 7/19/2024 (DOC 14}. A summons with interpleader complaint against NYPIUAwas filed on 9/3/2024 (DOC. 16 ancl 11) and served on the New York State Department of Financial Services on 10/21/2024 {DOC. 19). The parties stipulated to extend NYPIUA's time to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint until 12/20/2024 (DOC. 19). On 12/20/2024, NYPIUA served the pre-answer motionto dismiss the third-party action (DOC. 21).
NYPIUA issued a policy of insurance to Albert on 3/lo/2022. The policy provided coverage for "direct physicalloss of or damage to Cover Property at the premises described in theDedarationscai.ISe:d by or resulting from any CoveredLoss" subject to exclusions. The Covered Property was the Building (§A.l. [a]).Albert's ·Business Personal Property {§A. l .[b]),. _and Property of Others that is ''ih [Albert's] care, custody and control, and located in the building'' (§A.1.[c])(NYSCEF 13, p.9). 5
3 All references to NYSCEF in this section refer to Index #53 7425/2023. 4 The stipulation in the Govea action was inadvertently filed in Index #537425/2023 . . 5 The exhibits in all three motions are the same. References to the exhibits refer to the docketiri. this action, Index #507729/2023. '' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
507729/2023
Page4 of13
4 of 13
[* 4]
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 06/30/2025 12:40 PM INDEX NO. 507729/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 67 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/30/2025
Albert put NYPIUA on notice ofplaintiffs' lawsuits after answering their complaints on 7/19/2024 but before filing the third-party actions on 9/3/2024. NYPIUA issued a letter dated 8/27/2024 denying coverage to Albert forplaintiffs'1oss based on the policy provisions in §A. l. and A.2. (NYSCEF 14 ). Based on this denial coverage, Albert commenced the third-:party actions on 9/3/2024 in each action seeking (I} a declaratory judgtnentdirecting NYPIUA to provide coverage for plaintiffs' losses_, (2) da:tnages arising from NYPIUA's breach of contract,. and (3) express and implied indemnification under the policy for any damages incurred by Albert.
NYPIUA's motion to dismiss is based on policy provision§ H.5.[b] that·states, ''No one may bring a legal action against us under this policy unless (a) There has beenfull compliance with all of the tertns ofthis policy; and (b) The action is brought within two years after the date on which the direct physical loss or damage occurred" (NYSCEF 13. pp.26-27} Arguments of Counsel
a) NYPIUA
A party may move :to dismiss a complaint based on a defense founded ondocutnentary evidence, such as an insurance policy (CPLR § 3211 [a] [1]} and while accepting the facts as true and affording plaintiff every favorable inference, the four corners· of the complaint fail to cognizable state a cause ofaction {CPLR § 3211 [a] [71).
Under the policy provisions, only the building (§A.l.[a]) and Albert's personal business property ( §A. l . [b]) are "covered property/' a11d rtot the personal property of others. (NYSCEF 13. ~). Section H. 5 [b] ofthe policy shortened the statute oflirni~atiohs: fot commencing any legal action against NYPIU Ato two years fro,m the d11te of direct and physical foss (NYSCEF 13.
so7129ao23
Page.So/ IJ
5 of 13
[* 5]
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 06/30/2025 12:40 PM INDEX NO. 507729/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 67 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/30/2025
pp.26-27). Therefore, the statute of limitations was shortened for all causes of action in Albert's third-party complaints, regardless ofwhen each.cause.of action accrued.
Therefore, based on the foregoing policy provisions, since the personal property of plaintiffs is excluded from coverage and Albert's third-party actions are untimely, all third:-party complaints mustbe dismissed under CPLR § 3211 [a] [l] and [7].
Alternatively; if the Court does not dismiss the third-party complaints, the· declaratory judgment cause of action must be dismissed as it is duplicative of the breach ofcontract cause ·of action, which affords plaintiff an adequate remedy at law.
b) MadelineAlbert
Albertargues the motions should be denied because plaintiffs' losses for their personal property were not specifically excluded from coverage in §A.2. [a] through [q] (NYSCEF JJ,. p.9-11). Therefore, since there is an ambiguity between §A. L[c] [1] and [2] and §A.2. et seq., it must be construed againstNYPIUA.
Further; itis argued that the statute of limitations fot a breach of conttactacctues atthe time ofthe breach. Here, the. breach occurred. on 8/27/2024 ·when the denial letter was issued by
NYPIUA. Therefore,. the two-year statute oflimitations within the policy ..
did. not start to run
until 8/27/2024. Albert also argues that plaintiffs' actions wete timely cOinrnenced Within the statute of limitations; which renders the third-party actions timely. However, as "Ms. Albert Was relocated asa result ofthe fire; .. [plaintiffs were] unable to serve Ms. Albert." When Albert learned of the lawsuits in tile Spring 2024, she iinmediately forwarded the [lawsuits] to NYPIUA for indemnification (NYSCEF 41; p.11).
The declaratoryjudgm.ent cause of a<:tion should not be dismissed because it seeks a de.claratiort that the policy affords coverage to,Albert forplairitiffs' loss oftheir personal
. 507729/2023
Pag~~of13
6 of 13
[* 6]
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 06/30/2025 12:40 PM INDEX NO. 507729/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 67 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/30/2025
property. The breach of contract and indemnity causes ofactioil seekcompensatory damages if Albert is held liableto and must pay plaintiffs for their losses.
c) NYPIUA's Reply
In addition to reiterating its original position, NYPIUApoints out that Albert misconstrues the coverage and statute oflimitations policy· provisions.
The policy language is blear, "no one" may bring a lawsuit against NYPIUA unless it is commenced within two years of the loss; Even if plaintiffs, who are not named insurecls under the policy, could commence a legal action against NYPIUA, they did not commence their lawsuit against N\'PIUAdirectly within two years ofthe date ofloss. The preach of contract cases relied upon by Albert concerning the statute:of limitations are irrelevantbecause the Court was not construing a shortened time frame in an insurance policy.
The declaratory judgment is duplicative of the. breach of contrac:tclaim because the Court must determine thatthe policy covers plaintiffs' losses·to find a breach and thereafter award compensatory damages if Albert is held liable to plaintiffs. Law and Analysis
a) CPLR § 3211 [a] U]
"A motion pursuantto CPLR § 3211 [a] [ 1] to dismiss the complaint on the ground that . .
the ac:tiort is barred by documentary evidence may be [appropriately] granted oilly where the documentary evidence utterly refutes th.e plaintiff's factual allegations, thereby conclusively ~st~blishing a defens~; ·as. a matter oflaw" (Karpovich v City ofNew York, 1.62 AD3 d 996, 997 [2d Dept 2018] citing Maw ere v Landc,u, 13 0 AD3 d 9.86, 987 [2d Dept 2015]; se.e also Beal Sav. Bank v Sommer, ·8 NY3d 318, 324 [2007] [The c,onstruction of an µnam bigu:ous contract .is a matter oflaw;] and Gosh,m v Mutua/Lifelnsurance, Co. ofN. Y., 98 NY2d 314, 326 [2002]). "To
50.7729/2023
Page7(}/JJ
7 of 13
[* 7]
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 06/30/2025 12:40 PM INDEX NO. 507729/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 67 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/30/2025
constitute 'docume11.tacy' evidence, the evidence·must be unambiguous, authentic, and undeniable, such as judicial records and documents reflecting out-of-'-courttransactions such as
mortgages;
.
deeds, contracts,. and other papers, the contents of which are essentially undeniable;'
(Karpovichv City of New York, 162 AD3d at 997-998; see Prott v Lewin & Baglio; l 50 AD3d 908,909 (2d Dept20l7]), Although an insurance policy is also documentary evidence, extraneous documents such as policy notices, which are effectively letters, are not (see Magee- Boyle v Reliastar Life Ins; Co. ofNY, 173 Ab3 d 1157, 1159-1160 [2d Dept 2019]). Affidavits submitted in supportofsuchmotion do not qualify asdocumentary evidence becausetheir ''contents can be controverted by other evidence, such as another affidavit'; (Phillips v Taco Bell
Corp.,J52AD3d 806, 807 [2dDept 2017]; Prottv Lewin& Baglio, 150AD3d at909).
. . ..
b) CPLR § 3211 [al [71
Plaintiffs may submit affidavits in opposition to a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR § 3211 [a] [7] but it does not obligate thei:n to do so to avoid a dismissal (SeeRovello v Orofino Realty Co., 40 NY2d 633,635 [1976]). Therefore, plaintiff may stand on the pleadings alone, "confident that its allegations are sufficient to state all of the necessary elements of a cognizable cause of action' 1· to survive a motion to dismiss under· CPLR § 3 211 fa] [7] (id). When. deterinininga motion to dismisspursuantto CPLR § 3211 [a] [7], the Court must accept the factual allegations in the complaint as true and "accord plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable inference and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit into any cognizable legal theory" (Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 88 [ 1994]).
However, if the Court ~onsiders evidentiary rpaterial outsidt:; the pleadings artd the motion is not converted to one.for sµmmary judgment, "the question becomes whether the pleader has a cause of action,· not whether the pleader has stated one and, uriless it has been shown that a
507729/2023
Page8of13
8 of 13
[* 8]
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 06/30/2025 12:40 PM INDEX NO. 507729/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 67 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/30/2025
material fact as claimed by the pleader is not a fact at all, arid unless it can be said that no significant dispute exists regarding it, [aJ dismissal should not [be granted]" (Board of Mgts; of JOO Congress Condominium vBDS Congress, LLC, 152AD3d 478,480 [2cl Dept. 20171).
c) Statute of Limitations in Insurance Policies "An agreement which modifies the Statute of Limitations by specifying a shorter, but reasonable, period within which to commence an action is enforceable'; Executive Plaza, LLC v. Peerless Ins. Co., 22 NY3d 511, 518 [2014] [internal citations omitted]). The Court of Appeals has held that a contractual period of one year is enforceable. However, a problem with such a contractual provision may arise from the accrual date ofa cause of action rather than the shorter duration ofthe statute of limitations itself. (id.).
When the Court of Appeals decided Executive PIaza, LLC, ·the questjon to be determined was an issue of first impression. It involved the interpretation of a fire insurance policy that limited the time in which the insured could commence art action to two yearsJromthe date of the fire. However~ the policy contained another clause that permitted the insured to recover the cost ofreplacing destroyed property but only after the property had already been replaced. Therefore, if the process ofreplacing the property tookmore than two years, the insured's claim was time- batted before it came into existence under the policy provision. (22 NY3d 516).
The Court, citing a dissenting opinion, held that, [T]he period of thne within which an action must be brought , .. should be fair and reasonable, in view of the circumstances of each particular case ...... The circumstances, . not• the time;. must be• the .determining factor" (22. NY3d
519, quoting ContihentalLeather . Co: vLiverpool, Brazii & River PlateStearn Navigation Co., .
2S9 NY 621, 622-623 [1932] [J; Crane dissenting]; Stonewall Contt. Corp. vLdn$ 1s. Rail Rd. Co., 186AD3d 640, 642 [2d Dept2020], quoting Executive Plaza; LLC v Peerless Ins. Co.,22
$0772912023
Page.9of13
9 of 13
[* 9]
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 06/30/2025 12:40 PM INDEX NO. 507729/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 67 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/30/2025
NY3 d 519) .. A shorter time period that expires before an action can be commenced is not a statute of limitation "but simply a nullification of the claim" (Executive Plaza, LLC v. Peerless
Ins. Co,, 22 NY3d 518; Filasky vAndover Cos., 230 AD3d 1297, 1299 [2d Dept 2024], quoting D&S Restoration, Inc. v Wenger Constr. Co., 1nc;, 160 AD3d 924, 296 [2d2018]). A cause of . . . .
action for breach of contract does not accrue oil the date of loss; itaccrues at the time of the breach, which may be after the expiration of the Contractual shorten Hmitation of time.
Therefore, the shorter statute of limitations cannot be enforced because it cannot apply to a cause of action that does not exist on the date of loss(Filasky vAndover Cos., 230 AD3d 1300).
Otherwise, ail· insured' s claim will be time'." barred (or nullified)• before it comes into existence (Executive Plaza, LLC v. Peerless Ins. Cd., 22 NY3d 516).
d) The interpretation of contracts and insurance policies;
It is the function of the Couttto interpret an. unambiguous contract (CJzimartAssociates v Paul, 66 NY2d 570, 572'.'"573 [1986]; Beacon Music Co. v a Schirmer, Inc:, 141 AD2d484, 486 [2d Dept 1988]). To do so, the initial questicm that must be answered by the Court is "whether the·agreement on its face is reasonably susceptible of more than one interpretation" (66 NY2d 573). Any ambiguities in an insurance policY''are to.be.resolved in theinsured's favor and against the insuree' (United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company v Annunziata, 67 NY2d :?29, 232 [1986]).
e) Analysis
The Court will first address the statute oflimitationsJssue, Albert's t}lird~party causes of action for breach of contract are timely as the claim for breagh pfcontract did not accrue uti.til NYPIUA issued the denial letter on 8/27/2024. Otherwise, such claims would be nullified before they existed. (Executive Plaza, LLC vPeet.less Ins. Co,~ 22 NY3d 516-5 i 8; Filasky v Andover
.S07729120i3
Pagel()of 13
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - · - - · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·10 · · ·of
· · ·13
[* 10]
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 06/30/2025 12:40 PM INDEX NO. 507729/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 67 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/30/2025
Cos;, 230 AD3d 1299; D&S Restoration, Inc. v Wenger Constr. Co., Inc., 160 AD3d 296). Similarly, any claim for contractual indemnify under the insurance policy does not accrue until Albert makes payment on plaintiffs' claims because the cause of action is notcomplet~ Wltil the lossis suffered (Tedesco vA.P. Green Indus., Inc., 8NY3d.243, 247 [2007]; McDermottvNew York; SONY2d211, 217 [L980]; CPLR §213 [2]). Accordingly; Albert's third~party actions are timely.
However, affording plaintiff every favorable inference, "the insurance policy is clear and unambiguous on its face [<1.nd] not reasonably susceptible of more than one inherpretation," The loss of other persons' [plaintiffs'] personalproperty,.that is not in the care, custocly and control of Albert, is not covered under the plain and unambiguous language of the insurance policy. There are no inconsistences in the policy because the "care, custody and control" language is repeated in policy provision §A;5. [b] [2] that only affords cover for the personal property of others in Albert's care; custody and control, up to $2,500.00" (NYSCEF 13, p.17).
Neither party addresses the definition of the phrase "care, custody and Control" within the policy, Where, ashere, the phrase is undefined in the policy, the test to be applied in construing an insurance policy is "common speech" ( City of New York vPhiladelphia lndem. Ins. Co., 54 AD3d 709; 709 [2dDept 2008], citing Ace Wire & Cable Co. v Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 60 NY2d 390, 398 [1983]). Under this test, "care" means the undertaking ofa responsibility (see
. Lang v Hanover Ins. Co., 49AD3d l068, 1069 [3 rd Dept 2008]) or having the right to "interfere"
. . . .
with the property (see, generally Coitnty ofBroome v, Traveler$ lndem. Co., 58 NY2d 753, 760 [1982]) .. Once property js leased; the "e:~e, custody or control" of the tenanfs belongings continue ~'in their hands" and the fact that a landlord may retain a in!;lster key for a~cess to a leased premise.s, does not subject their personal property to the 1'care, custody or control of the
so1129ao23
Page lloflJ
11 of 13
[* 11]
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 06/30/2025 12:40 PM INDEX NO. 507729/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 67 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/30/2025
landlord" (id.), Anoth~r litmus test to determine whether art insured had "care, custody or .control" of personal property of another is wllether the insured had the right to use it (Dubay v Trans.;.America Ins, Co., 75AD2d 312,319 [2d Dept 1980]).
The foregoing definitions render Albert's interpretation of the policy language that it covers the plaintiffs' personal property [irt their apartments] is without merit. (Beacon Music Co. v G. Schirmer; Inc., 141 AD2d 486). Therefore, since the third~party complaints do not allege thatthe plaintiffs' personal property was in Albert's care, custodyand control, or state facts that could be liberally construed as such, these complaints failto state any viable and cognizant causes of action covered by the policy of insurance arisingout of the 8/12/2022 fire (Leonv Martinez, 84 NY2d 88; CPLR § 32·11 [a] [7]).
The insurance policy's clear and unambiguous language also establishes that there is no endorsement affording coverage to Albert or other persons for personal injuries such as emotional distress ot incidental dat11ages related thereto such as lost wages and homelessness as alleged in plaintiffs' complaint. This policy strictly coveted thebuilding;Albert's personal business property, and the property of others withinAlbert's care, custody and control. Therefore, th.e insurance policy also utterly refutes the plaintiff's factual allegations, thereby conclµsively establishing a documentary clefense, as a matter oflaw (Karpovich v City a/New York, 162 ADJ d 997; CPLR § 3211 [a.] [I]}.
Based on the foregoing,Albert's third-:party complaint is di.smissed in its.entirety. The Court has considered the parties \rema:irting arguments arid finds. same to be .rendered academic or without rqerit.
507729/2023
Page 12 of 13,
12 of 13
[* 12]
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 06/30/2025 12:40 PM INDEX NO. 507729/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 67 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/30/2025
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that NEW YORK PROPERTY INSURANCE UNDERWRITING ASSOCIATIONS' motions.to dismiss defendant/third-party plaintiffMADELINEALBERT's third~party complaints are granted in their entirety (MS 001, 003 and 004).
This· constitutes the·. decision and order of the Court.
For Clerks useohly:
Hon. nne J. Swern, J.S.C.
MG _ _ Dated: 6/26/2025 MD _ _
Motion seq.# _ _ __
507729/2023,
Pagei3of 13
13 of 13
[* 13]