Renaissance 21 Inc. v. New York Property Insurance Underwriting Ass'n

258 A.D.2d 614, 684 N.Y.S.2d 287
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Renaissance 21 Inc. v. New York Property Insurance Underwriting Ass'n. Read the opinion of the Court — 257 A.D.2d 614

Opinion

—In an action to recover the proceeds of a property insurance policy, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Aronin, J.), dated December 19, 1997, which, inter alia, granted the plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff succeeded in demonstrating prima facie its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law for payment under the subject policy by establishing that it suffered a loss of business personal property which was “in the open * * * within 100 feet of the [insured] premises” (see generally, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851). Inasmuch as the defendant failed to raise a genuine triable issue of fact in opposition to the motion (see generally, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557), and similarly failed to establish that additional discovery was required before the motion could be decided (see, CPLR 3212 [f]), the Supreme Court properly awarded partial summary judgment on the issue of liability in favor of the plaintiff. Santucci, J. P., Altman, Friedmann and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

Renaissance 21 Inc. v. New York Property Insurance Underwriting Ass'n, 258 A.D.2d 614, 684 N.Y.S.2d 287 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

258 A.D.2d 614 (Renaissance 21 Inc. v. New York Property Insurance Underwriting Ass'n) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Zuckerman v. City of New York
404 N.E.2d 718 (New York Court of Appeals, 1980)
Winegrad v. New York University Medical Center
476 N.E.2d 642 (New York Court of Appeals, 1985)
Alvarez v. Prospect Hospital
501 N.E.2d 572 (New York Court of Appeals, 1986)