Sterling Landlord Corp. v Axis Ins. Co. 2024 NY Slip Op 32955(U) August 20, 2024 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 651800/2021 Judge: Suzanne Adams Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. INDEX NO. 651800/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 51 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/20/2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. SUZANNE ADAMS PART 39M Justice -----------------------------------------------------------------------X INDEX NO. 651800/2021 STERLING LANDLORD CORP., UNITED STATES MOTION DATE N/A REALTY & INVESTMENT COMPANY, C&I BROADWAY, LLC MOTION SEQ. NO. 002 Plaintiff,
- V - DECISION + ORDER ON AXIS INSURANCE COMPANY, MOTION
Defendant. -------X
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39,40, 41,42, 43,44, 45,46,47,48, 49 were read on this motion to/for JUDGMENT - SUMMARY
Upon the foregoing documents, it is ordered that defendant's motion is denied and
plaintiffs' cross-motion is granted. Plaintiffs in this action are the landlords of the premises at 1650
Broadway, New York, New York. Pursuant to a lease effective June 1, 2017, through May 31,
2027, non-party 1650 Broadway Associates Inc. ("Tenant") leased the premises. The lease
provided that Tenant be responsible for taking good care of the premises and the adjacent II sidewalks and keeping the sidewalks in good condition, and also that it obtain general liability
insurance and name plaintiffs as additional insureds. Tenant procured a liability policy from
defendant, who issued an insurance policy for Tenant effective June 17, 2019, through June 17,
2020, which, inter alia, limited coverage to the premises as well as bodily injury arising out of the
ownership, maintenance, or use of the premises and the operations necessary or incidental to the
premises, and named plaintiffs as additional insureds.
In 2019, a non-party individual allegedly tripped and fell on the sidewalk in front of the
premises and brought suit against plaintiffs (and others) alleging the sidewalk was negligently
651800/2021 STERLING LANDLORD CORP. ET AL vs. AXIS INSURANCE COMPANY Page 1 of 4 Motion No. 002
[* 1] 1 of 4 INDEX NO. 651800/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 51 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/20/2024
II maintained and was in a broken and unsafe condition. Plaintiffs sent a tender letter on or about
September 18, 2020, to defendant seeking defense and indemnification in the underlying action, !·
and commenced this declaratory judgment action in March 2021. Defendant now moves pursuant
to CPLR 3212 for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and declaring it has no duty to
indemnify or defend plaintiffs in connection to the underlying action. Plaintiffs oppose the motion
and cross-move pursuant to CPLR 3001 and 3212 for summary judgment declaring that defendant:
(1) has a duty to defend and indemnify plaintiffs in the underlying action; and (2) must cover costs
of defense payments by plaintiffs or plaintiffs' insurer for the underlying action, plus statutory
interest. Defendant opposes the cross-motion.
"The proponent of a summary judgment motion must make a prima facie showing of
entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material
issues of fact from the case." Winegrad v. NY Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853 (1985)
(citations omitted). If the moving party meets their burden, the opposing party must produce
evidentiary proof in admissible form that is sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. Zuckerman v 11
City ofNew York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562 (1980). Further, "[a]n insurer's duty to defend its insured is
'exceedingly broad.' An 'insurer will be called upon to provide a defense whenever the allegations
in the complaint suggest ... a reasonable possibility of coverage.' 'If [a] complaint contains any
facts or allegations which bring the claim even potentially within the protection purchased, the
insurer is obligated to defend.' This standard applies equally to additional insureds and named
insureds." Regal Constr. Corp. v National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 15 N.Y.3d 34,
37 (2010) (citations omitted). Where an insured has an express duty to maintain the sidewalk
outside its leased premises, and to indemnify the landlord, it can be reasonably inferred that an
underlying accident on the sidewalk in front of the leased premises arises from the maintenance of
651800/2021 STERLING LANDLORD CORP. ET AL vs. AXIS INSURANCE COMPANY Page 2 of 4 Motion No. 002
[* 2] 2 of 4 INDEX NO. 651800/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 51 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/20/2024
the sidewalk. Wesco Ins. Co. v Rutgers Cas. Ins. Co., 202 A.D.3d 460 (l5t Dep't 2022). Thus,
where an insurance policy covers liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of the
part leased to a tenant, an additional insured endorsement covers claims arising out of a defect on
the sidewalk where a lease agreement obligates a tenant to keep the sidewalk in reasonably good i I 'I condition. Tower Ins. Co. of New York v Leading Ins. Group Ins. Co., Ltd., 134 A.D.3d 510, 510 II (1 st Dep't 2015). In fact, use of the sidewalk for access to a premises is an inextricable part of the
use the premises so liability arising from the sidewalk use falls within an additional insured' s
coverage. ZKZ Assoc. v CNA Ins. Co., 224 A.D.2d 174, 176 (1 st Dep't 1996), affd 89 N.Y.2d 990
(1997); see also New York Convention Ctr. Operating Corp. v Cerullo World Evangelism, 269
A.D.2d 275, 276 (1 st Dep't 2000) (liability insurance includes "not only the premises specifically
identified as covered, but also other space whose use was incidental to the use of the expressly
covered premises").
Here, defendant fails to meet its prima facie burden, in that it fails to show that the sidewalk
is not part of the covered premises and that plaintiffs are not entitled to additional insureds
coverage. The policy at issue states that coverage applies to "bodily injury" claims arising out of
"[t]he ownership, maintenance, or use of the premises ... and operations necessary or incidental
to those premises[.]" The policy itself makes no distinction between persons who use the sidewalk
to enter or exit the premises and persons who use the sidewalk to pass by the premises. In either
event, the adjacent sidewalk is an incidental part of the premises from which liability arising from
its use squarely falls within plaintiffs' additional insured coverage.
On the other hand, plaintiffs have met their prima facie burden, and defendant fails to raise
a triable issue of fact that would preclude summary judgment. The personal injury claim in the
underlying action arises out of the maintenance or use of the premises, which includes the
651800/2021 STERLING LANDLORD CORP. ET AL vs. AXIS INSURANCE COMPANY Page 3 of 4 Motion No. 002
3 of 4 [* 3] INDEX NO. 651800/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 51 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/20/2024
sidewalk, that is within the covered language or events of the insurance policy. Since the
underlying plaintiff's claim stems from covered instances in the insurance policy, defendant has a
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Sterling Landlord Corp. v Axis Ins. Co. 2024 NY Slip Op 32955(U) August 20, 2024 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 651800/2021 Judge: Suzanne Adams Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. INDEX NO. 651800/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 51 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/20/2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. SUZANNE ADAMS PART 39M Justice -----------------------------------------------------------------------X INDEX NO. 651800/2021 STERLING LANDLORD CORP., UNITED STATES MOTION DATE N/A REALTY & INVESTMENT COMPANY, C&I BROADWAY, LLC MOTION SEQ. NO. 002 Plaintiff,
- V - DECISION + ORDER ON AXIS INSURANCE COMPANY, MOTION
Defendant. -------X
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39,40, 41,42, 43,44, 45,46,47,48, 49 were read on this motion to/for JUDGMENT - SUMMARY
Upon the foregoing documents, it is ordered that defendant's motion is denied and
plaintiffs' cross-motion is granted. Plaintiffs in this action are the landlords of the premises at 1650
Broadway, New York, New York. Pursuant to a lease effective June 1, 2017, through May 31,
2027, non-party 1650 Broadway Associates Inc. ("Tenant") leased the premises. The lease
provided that Tenant be responsible for taking good care of the premises and the adjacent II sidewalks and keeping the sidewalks in good condition, and also that it obtain general liability
insurance and name plaintiffs as additional insureds. Tenant procured a liability policy from
defendant, who issued an insurance policy for Tenant effective June 17, 2019, through June 17,
2020, which, inter alia, limited coverage to the premises as well as bodily injury arising out of the
ownership, maintenance, or use of the premises and the operations necessary or incidental to the
premises, and named plaintiffs as additional insureds.
In 2019, a non-party individual allegedly tripped and fell on the sidewalk in front of the
premises and brought suit against plaintiffs (and others) alleging the sidewalk was negligently
651800/2021 STERLING LANDLORD CORP. ET AL vs. AXIS INSURANCE COMPANY Page 1 of 4 Motion No. 002
[* 1] 1 of 4 INDEX NO. 651800/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 51 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/20/2024
II maintained and was in a broken and unsafe condition. Plaintiffs sent a tender letter on or about
September 18, 2020, to defendant seeking defense and indemnification in the underlying action, !·
and commenced this declaratory judgment action in March 2021. Defendant now moves pursuant
to CPLR 3212 for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and declaring it has no duty to
indemnify or defend plaintiffs in connection to the underlying action. Plaintiffs oppose the motion
and cross-move pursuant to CPLR 3001 and 3212 for summary judgment declaring that defendant:
(1) has a duty to defend and indemnify plaintiffs in the underlying action; and (2) must cover costs
of defense payments by plaintiffs or plaintiffs' insurer for the underlying action, plus statutory
interest. Defendant opposes the cross-motion.
"The proponent of a summary judgment motion must make a prima facie showing of
entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material
issues of fact from the case." Winegrad v. NY Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853 (1985)
(citations omitted). If the moving party meets their burden, the opposing party must produce
evidentiary proof in admissible form that is sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. Zuckerman v 11
City ofNew York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562 (1980). Further, "[a]n insurer's duty to defend its insured is
'exceedingly broad.' An 'insurer will be called upon to provide a defense whenever the allegations
in the complaint suggest ... a reasonable possibility of coverage.' 'If [a] complaint contains any
facts or allegations which bring the claim even potentially within the protection purchased, the
insurer is obligated to defend.' This standard applies equally to additional insureds and named
insureds." Regal Constr. Corp. v National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 15 N.Y.3d 34,
37 (2010) (citations omitted). Where an insured has an express duty to maintain the sidewalk
outside its leased premises, and to indemnify the landlord, it can be reasonably inferred that an
underlying accident on the sidewalk in front of the leased premises arises from the maintenance of
651800/2021 STERLING LANDLORD CORP. ET AL vs. AXIS INSURANCE COMPANY Page 2 of 4 Motion No. 002
[* 2] 2 of 4 INDEX NO. 651800/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 51 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/20/2024
the sidewalk. Wesco Ins. Co. v Rutgers Cas. Ins. Co., 202 A.D.3d 460 (l5t Dep't 2022). Thus,
where an insurance policy covers liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of the
part leased to a tenant, an additional insured endorsement covers claims arising out of a defect on
the sidewalk where a lease agreement obligates a tenant to keep the sidewalk in reasonably good i I 'I condition. Tower Ins. Co. of New York v Leading Ins. Group Ins. Co., Ltd., 134 A.D.3d 510, 510 II (1 st Dep't 2015). In fact, use of the sidewalk for access to a premises is an inextricable part of the
use the premises so liability arising from the sidewalk use falls within an additional insured' s
coverage. ZKZ Assoc. v CNA Ins. Co., 224 A.D.2d 174, 176 (1 st Dep't 1996), affd 89 N.Y.2d 990
(1997); see also New York Convention Ctr. Operating Corp. v Cerullo World Evangelism, 269
A.D.2d 275, 276 (1 st Dep't 2000) (liability insurance includes "not only the premises specifically
identified as covered, but also other space whose use was incidental to the use of the expressly
covered premises").
Here, defendant fails to meet its prima facie burden, in that it fails to show that the sidewalk
is not part of the covered premises and that plaintiffs are not entitled to additional insureds
coverage. The policy at issue states that coverage applies to "bodily injury" claims arising out of
"[t]he ownership, maintenance, or use of the premises ... and operations necessary or incidental
to those premises[.]" The policy itself makes no distinction between persons who use the sidewalk
to enter or exit the premises and persons who use the sidewalk to pass by the premises. In either
event, the adjacent sidewalk is an incidental part of the premises from which liability arising from
its use squarely falls within plaintiffs' additional insured coverage.
On the other hand, plaintiffs have met their prima facie burden, and defendant fails to raise
a triable issue of fact that would preclude summary judgment. The personal injury claim in the
underlying action arises out of the maintenance or use of the premises, which includes the
651800/2021 STERLING LANDLORD CORP. ET AL vs. AXIS INSURANCE COMPANY Page 3 of 4 Motion No. 002
3 of 4 [* 3] INDEX NO. 651800/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 51 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/20/2024
sidewalk, that is within the covered language or events of the insurance policy. Since the
underlying plaintiff's claim stems from covered instances in the insurance policy, defendant has a
duty to defend and indemnify plaintiffs in the underlying action, and defendant does not proffer
an exclusion clause to deny coverage. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that defendant's motion is denied; and it is further
ORDERED that plaintiffs' cross-motion is granted in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that defendant owes a duty to defend and
indemnify plaintiffs on a primary basis with respect to the underlying action captioned Pinto v.
Sterling Landlord Corp., et al., pending in the Supreme Court, New York County, under Index
No. 155178/2020; and it is further
ORDERED that a hearing in this matter to determine the amount of defense payments made
by plaintiffs or plaintiffs' insurer with respect to the underlying action, plus statutory interest and
costs of suit, is referred to a Special Referee, and that within 60 days from the date of this order
plaintiff shall cause a copy of this order with notice of entry, including proof of service thereof, to
be filed with the Special Referee clerk (Room 119M, 646-386-3028 or spref@nycourts.gov) to
arrange a date for a reference to determine pursuant to CPLR § 43 l 7(b), and that pursuant to CPLR
§ 3215(b) the Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of plaintiffs and against defendant in
accordance with the report of the aforementioned Special Referee without any further application.
This constitutes the decision and order of the court.
08/20/2024 I I
DATE SUZANNE ADAMS, J.S.C. CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED NON-FINAL DISPOSITION
GRANTED □ DENIED GRANTED IN PART GJ OTHER APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER
CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT □ REFERENCE
651800/2021 STERLING LANDLORD CORP. ET AL vs. AXIS INSURANCE COMPANY Page 4 of 4 Motion No. 002
4 of 4 [* 4]