West 70th Owners Corp. v. Hiram Cohen & Son, Inc.

2018 NY Slip Op 7957

• Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
• Decided: November 20, 2018
• Docket: 7674 156272/15
• Status: Published

Opinion

West 70th Owners Corp. v Hiram Cohen & Son, Inc. (2018 NY Slip Op 07957)

West 70th Owners Corp. v Hiram Cohen & Son, Inc.

2018 NY Slip Op 07957

Decided on November 20, 2018

Appellate Division, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on November 20, 2018
Sweeny, J.P., Gische, Kapnick, Gesmer, Moulton, JJ.

7674 156272/15

[*1]West 70th Owners Corp., et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents,

v

Hiram Cohen & Son, Inc., et al., Defendants-Appellants.

Keidel, Weldon & Cunningham, LLP, White Plains (Darren P. Renner of counsel), for appellants.

Jaroslawicz & Jaros PLLC, New York (David Tolchin of counsel), for respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Andrea Masley, J.), entered on or about January 30, 2018, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against Hiram Cohen & Son, Inc., unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In opposition to defendants' prima facie showing that Hiram Cohen & Son, Inc. (HCS) was not negligent or in breach of a contract in connection with its procurement of an insurance policy, plaintiffs demonstrated the existence of issues of fact, namely, whether they made a specific request for particular insurance coverage, and whether they had a special relationship with HCS that would have obligated HCS to make certain that they were properly insured. HCS's claims that plaintiff failed to timely read and understand the policy only go to comparative negligence, but do not bar the action altogether (see American Bldg. Supply Corp. v Petrocelli Group, Inc., 19 NY3d 730 [2012]). Additionally, this issue is factually disputed (id.).

We have considered defendants' remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: NOVEMBER 20, 2018

DEPUTY CLERK