Lloyds of London v. Evanston

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lloyds of London v. Evanston

125 A.D.3d 522, 1 N.Y.S.3d 807

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

DecidedFebruary 19, 2015

Docket14284 151786/12

StatusPublished

This text of 125 A.D.3d 522 (Lloyds of London v. Evanston) 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

Lloyds of London v. Evanston, 125 A.D.3d 522, 1 N.Y.S.3d 807 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lucy Billings, J.), entered on or about June 5, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Triable issues of fact exist, including whether defendant’s act of turning on his HVAC unit, after having been told by the technician that examined it that it was defective and that defendant should not use it, caused the leak that damaged plaintiffs subrogor’s apartment, which was below defendant’s apartment (compare Admiral Indem. Co. v Miji Wu Jeng, 2010 NY Slip Op 30794[U] [Sup Ct, NY County 2010] [dismissal of complaint warranted where there was a lack of evidence that tenant was aware of defect to HVAC system that ultimately resulted in a leak into an apartment below]). If, as defendant contends, it would require an expert to prove that his actions caused the leak, it would also be true that an expert would be required to show, as a matter of law, that defendant’s actions did not cause the leak. Defendant has failed to offer such proof. Concur — Friedman, J.P., Andrias, Moskowitz, DeGrasse and Richter, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2014 NY Slip Op 315440J).]

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lucy Billings, J.), entered on or about June 5, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Triable issues of fact exist, including whether defendant’s act of turning on his HVAC unit, after having been told by the technician that examined it that it was defective and that defendant should not use it, caused the leak that damaged plaintiffs subrogor’s apartment, which was below defendant’s apartment (compare Admiral Indem. Co. v Miji Wu Jeng, 2010 NY Slip Op 30794[U] [Sup Ct, NY County 2010] [dismissal of complaint warranted where there was a lack of evidence that tenant was aware of defect to HVAC system that ultimately resulted in a leak into an apartment below]). If, as defendant contends, it would require an expert to prove that his actions caused the leak, it would also be true that an expert would be required to show, as a matter of law, that defendant’s actions did not cause the leak. Defendant has failed to offer such proof. Concur — Friedman, J.P., Andrias, Moskowitz, DeGrasse and Richter, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2014 NY Slip Op 315440J).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 A.D.3d 522, 1 N.Y.S.3d 807, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lloyds-of-london-v-evanston-nyappdiv-2015.