Zises v. New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Zises v. New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance

116 A.D.3d 950, 983 N.Y.S.2d 858

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

DecidedApril 23, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 116 A.D.3d 950 (Zises v. New York Central Mutual Fire 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

Zises v. New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance, 116 A.D.3d 950, 983 N.Y.S.2d 858 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for breach of a homeowner’s insurance policy, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Pagones, J.), dated January 10, 2012, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant insurer established, prima facie, that it properly disclaimed coverage under a homeowner’s insurance policy on the ground that the plaintiff did not live at the covered [951]*951property at the time of the subject 2005 fire. The defendant’s denial of coverage was properly based on the terms of the homeowner’s policy, coupled with the plaintiffs misrepresentation that, in 2005, he “occupied” the subject premises “on a full-time basis” (see Vela v Tower Ins. Co. of N.Y., 83 AD3d 1050 [2011]; Milgrim v Royal & SunAlliance Ins. Co., 75 AD3d 587 [2010]; Marshall v Tower Ins. Co. of N.Y., 44 AD3d 1014 [2007]; Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v Pulido, 271 AD2d 57 [2000]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Mastro, J.P., Chambers, Austin and Miller, JJ., concur. [Prior Case History: 34 Mise 3d 1208(A), 2012 NY Slip Op 50020OJ).]

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

In an action to recover damages for breach of a homeowner’s insurance policy, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Pagones, J.), dated January 10, 2012, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant insurer established, prima facie, that it properly disclaimed coverage under a homeowner’s insurance policy on the ground that the plaintiff did not live at the covered [951]*951property at the time of the subject 2005 fire. The defendant’s denial of coverage was properly based on the terms of the homeowner’s policy, coupled with the plaintiffs misrepresentation that, in 2005, he “occupied” the subject premises “on a full-time basis” (see Vela v Tower Ins. Co. of N.Y., 83 AD3d 1050 [2011]; Milgrim v Royal & SunAlliance Ins. Co., 75 AD3d 587 [2010]; Marshall v Tower Ins. Co. of N.Y., 44 AD3d 1014 [2007]; Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v Pulido, 271 AD2d 57 [2000]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Mastro, J.P., Chambers, Austin and Miller, JJ., concur. [Prior Case History: 34 Mise 3d 1208(A), 2012 NY Slip Op 50020OJ).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 A.D.3d 950, 983 N.Y.S.2d 858, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zises-v-new-york-central-mutual-fire-insurance-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack