Tower Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Atuana

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tower Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Atuana

127 A.D.3d 454, 4 N.Y.S.3d 523

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

DecidedApril 9, 2015

Docket14777 153611/12

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 127 A.D.3d 454 (Tower Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Atuana) 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

Tower Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Atuana, 127 A.D.3d 454, 4 N.Y.S.3d 523 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan M. Kenney, J.), entered November 26, 2013, which, inter alia, denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted, and it is declared that plaintiff is not obligated to defend and indemnify the insured defendant under the homeowner’s policy issued for his premises, and that the policy was properly cancelled. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Despite the requirement in his policy and his representation in the application that his premises is a two-family dwelling, defendant insured provided a statement and deposition testimony which sufficiently demonstrated that the building was a three-family dwelling. The deed and city document indicating that the building was a two-family dwelling were irrelevant (see Hermitage Ins. Co. v LaFleur, 100 AD3d 426 [1st Dept 2012]), and the insurers’ underwriter affidavit and guidelines established that the misrepresentation in the application was material (id.). The insured’s claimed need for discovery provides no basis to forestall summary judgment, given that he neither sought any before the motion court nor now shows that it would have assisted him in opposing the motion.

Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Mazzarelli, Saxe, ManzanetDaniels and Clark, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan M. Kenney, J.), entered November 26, 2013, which, inter alia, denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted, and it is declared that plaintiff is not obligated to defend and indemnify the insured defendant under the homeowner’s policy issued for his premises, and that the policy was properly cancelled. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Despite the requirement in his policy and his representation in the application that his premises is a two-family dwelling, defendant insured provided a statement and deposition testimony which sufficiently demonstrated that the building was a three-family dwelling. The deed and city document indicating that the building was a two-family dwelling were irrelevant (see Hermitage Ins. Co. v LaFleur, 100 AD3d 426 [1st Dept 2012]), and the insurers’ underwriter affidavit and guidelines established that the misrepresentation in the application was material (id.). The insured’s claimed need for discovery provides no basis to forestall summary judgment, given that he neither sought any before the motion court nor now shows that it would have assisted him in opposing the motion.

Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Mazzarelli, Saxe, ManzanetDaniels and Clark, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 A.D.3d 454, 4 N.Y.S.3d 523, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tower-ins-co-of-ny-v-atuana-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack