From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

New York City Hous. v. U.S. Underwriters

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 18, 2004
7 A.D.3d 393 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

3654.

Decided May 18, 2004.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Nelson Roman, J.), entered on or about June 18, 2003, which, inter alia, granted the motion of defendant United States Underwriters Insurance Company to dismiss the complaint insofar as to declare that it was not obligated under policy 3042677 to defend or indemnify plaintiff in the underlying personal injury lawsuit, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Herzfeld Rubin, P.C., New York (David B. Hamm of counsel), for appellant.

Miranda Sokoloff, LLP, Mineola (Steven Verveniotis of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan, Friedman, Gonzalez, JJ.


Even though the cover page of policy 3042677 describes the covered location as "various," plaintiff's renewal application makes it clear that the policy was limited to contract GD 9500062 for indoor vanities at 1605 E. 174th Street. This conclusion is reinforced by endorsements 2 and 3 to the same policy. Although dated May 17, 2001, these endorsements were expressly effective beginning October 20, 2000 (i.e., prior to the accident) ( see Seaver v. Massachusetts Bonding Ins. Co., 7 A.D.2d 310, 314, affd 7 N.Y.2d 950) and limit the policy to the aforementioned contract and location. Accordingly, inasmuch as it is undisputed that the accident for which recovery is sought in the underlying action — alleged to have occurred in connection with outdoor fencework on 149th Street — neither took place at 1605 E. 174th Street nor arose out of contract GD 9500062 for indoor vanities, the declaration in defendant insurer's favor was proper. The propriety of the declaration is not cast in doubt by the reference to policy 3042679 in endorsement 3 to policy 3042677, since policy 3042679 is expressly limited to interior carpentry and residential plumbing ( see Ruiz v. State Wide Insulation Constr. Corp., 269 A.D.2d 518, 519).

We have reviewed plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

New York City Hous. v. U.S. Underwriters

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 18, 2004
7 A.D.3d 393 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

New York City Hous. v. U.S. Underwriters

Case Details

Full title:NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: May 18, 2004

Citations

7 A.D.3d 393 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
776 N.Y.S.2d 468

Citing Cases

Northfield Ins. Co. v. Midtown Restorations LLC

The record establishes that plaintiff is entitled to the declaration sought, where the underlying action…

In Matter of Long Is. Ins. Co. v. Garrison

The problem with the varying policy initials is thus explained by U.S. Underwriters' exhibits as noted and…