J & R Electronics Inc. v. One Beacon Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

J & R Electronics Inc. v. One Beacon Insurance

35 A.D.3d 169, 825 N.Y.S.2d 462

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 5, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 35 A.D.3d 169 (J & R Electronics Inc. v. One Beacon 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

J & R Electronics Inc. v. One Beacon Insurance, 35 A.D.3d 169, 825 N.Y.S.2d 462 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered December 19, 2005, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

When calculating plaintiffs actual loss of business income as provided under the business interruption clause of the insurance policy, defendant properly deducted a payment already made to plaintiff for its damaged merchandise at the selling price. Elaintiff would otherwise have received a double recovery for these goods. Elaintiff s argument that the payment for the merchandise should not have been deducted at selling price because it was not received in the ordinary course of business, and that the lack of normal cash flow resulted in the loss of business opportunities, is essentially a request for consequential damages, which were not recoverable under the policy (see Brody Truck Rental v Country Wide Ins. Co., 277 AD2d 125 [2000], lv dismissed 96 NY2d 854 [2001]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions, including its request for additional discovery, and find them unavailing. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P, Friedman, Sullivan, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ. [See 12 Misc 3d 1184(A), 2005 NY Slip Op 52307(U) (2005).]

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered December 19, 2005, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

When calculating plaintiffs actual loss of business income as provided under the business interruption clause of the insurance policy, defendant properly deducted a payment already made to plaintiff for its damaged merchandise at the selling price. Elaintiff would otherwise have received a double recovery for these goods. Elaintiff s argument that the payment for the merchandise should not have been deducted at selling price because it was not received in the ordinary course of business, and that the lack of normal cash flow resulted in the loss of business opportunities, is essentially a request for consequential damages, which were not recoverable under the policy (see Brody Truck Rental v Country Wide Ins. Co., 277 AD2d 125 [2000], lv dismissed 96 NY2d 854 [2001]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions, including its request for additional discovery, and find them unavailing. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P, Friedman, Sullivan, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ. [See 12 Misc 3d 1184(A), 2005 NY Slip Op 52307(U) (2005).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 A.D.3d 169, 825 N.Y.S.2d 462, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/j-r-electronics-inc-v-one-beacon-insurance-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack