Nasir v. Interboro Mutual Indemnity Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nasir v. Interboro Mutual Indemnity Insurance

1 A.D.2d 489, 767 N.Y.S.2d 234

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

DecidedNovember 17, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 1 A.D.2d 489 (Nasir v. Interboro Mutual Indemnity 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

Nasir v. Interboro Mutual Indemnity Insurance, 1 A.D.2d 489, 767 N.Y.S.2d 234 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover for property damage pursuant to a [490]*490homeowner’s insurance policy, the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Jonas, J.), dated January 27, 2003, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the Supreme Court properly denied its motion for summary judgment. The defendant failed to demonstrate the absence of a triable issue of fact with respect to whether the plaintiff breached the terms of her homeowner’s insurance policy, or whether the alleged damage to the premises resulted from neglect and wear and tear, and therefore was not covered under the plaintiff’s policy (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Smith, J.E, Krausman, McGinity and Rivera, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover for property damage pursuant to a [490]*490homeowner’s insurance policy, the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Jonas, J.), dated January 27, 2003, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the Supreme Court properly denied its motion for summary judgment. The defendant failed to demonstrate the absence of a triable issue of fact with respect to whether the plaintiff breached the terms of her homeowner’s insurance policy, or whether the alleged damage to the premises resulted from neglect and wear and tear, and therefore was not covered under the plaintiff’s policy (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Smith, J.E, Krausman, McGinity and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 A.D.2d 489, 767 N.Y.S.2d 234, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nasir-v-interboro-mutual-indemnity-insurance-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack