Nesher, LLC v. Realm National Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nesher, LLC v. Realm National Insurance

6 A.D.3d 242, 774 N.Y.S.2d 331, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4518

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

DecidedApril 15, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 6 A.D.3d 242 (Nesher, LLC v. Realm National 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

Nesher, LLC v. Realm National Insurance, 6 A.D.3d 242, 774 N.Y.S.2d 331, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4518 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

[243]*243Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara R. Kapnick, J.), entered October 8, 2003, which denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, and granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The phrase in the policy to “do your best” is unambiguous, and has a clear and unmistakable meaning (see Goldman & Sons v Hanover Ins. Co., 80 NY2d 986 [1992]). The undisputed evidence establishes that plaintiff failed to purchase oil for the heating tank or to contract with an oil supplier for the premises during the 18 months from its acquisition of the premises until the water damage resulting from the frozen pipes. In addition, plaintiffs caretaker was not instructed on how to maintain the heat, and was never even told that the premises were heated with oil, how to cheek for oil in the tank, or where the oil tank was located. Under any reasonable interpretation, plaintiff failed to “do [its] best” to maintain heat in the building. Concur— Buckley, P.J., Tom, Sullivan and Williams, JJ.

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

[243]*243Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara R. Kapnick, J.), entered October 8, 2003, which denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, and granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The phrase in the policy to “do your best” is unambiguous, and has a clear and unmistakable meaning (see Goldman & Sons v Hanover Ins. Co., 80 NY2d 986 [1992]). The undisputed evidence establishes that plaintiff failed to purchase oil for the heating tank or to contract with an oil supplier for the premises during the 18 months from its acquisition of the premises until the water damage resulting from the frozen pipes. In addition, plaintiffs caretaker was not instructed on how to maintain the heat, and was never even told that the premises were heated with oil, how to cheek for oil in the tank, or where the oil tank was located. Under any reasonable interpretation, plaintiff failed to “do [its] best” to maintain heat in the building. Concur— Buckley, P.J., Tom, Sullivan and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 A.D.3d 242, 774 N.Y.S.2d 331, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4518, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nesher-llc-v-realm-national-insurance-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack