You are here: / / ALTHOUGH THE INSURANCE POLICY EXCLUDED WATER DAMAGE AND THE INSURED PROPERTY...
,

ALTHOUGH THE INSURANCE POLICY EXCLUDED WATER DAMAGE AND THE INSURED PROPERTY WAS FLOODED DURING HURRICANE SANDY, THE INSURER’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT REFUTE THE ALLEGATION THE INSURED PROPERTY WAS DAMAGED BY AN ELECTRICAL SHORT A MONTH AFTER THE STORM WHEN ELECTRICITY WAS RESTORED.

The First Department determined the insurer’s (National Specialty’s) motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly denied. The insurance policy excluded water-related damage. There was no question that the building housing plaintiff’s (Pastabar’s) refrigeration equipment was flooded during Hurricane Sandy. However, plaintiff alleged damage to the refrigeration equipment was caused by an electrical short when the electricity was turned on a month after the storm. The affidavit from the insurer’s expert did not refute plaintiff’s allegation:

In compliance with its obligations under its lease, Pastabar had bought a commercial package policy containing commercial general liability and property damage coverage from defendant National Specialty. * * *

National Specialty failed to establish prima facie that all of Pastabar’s claimed losses were caused by flood waters resulting from Hurricane Sandy … , and were thus within the insurance policy exclusion for water and floods. Based on photographs that Pastabar received from an unidentified neighbor, National Specialty’s expert made a finding concerning the exterior water level at the premises … . However, the expert never inspected the site or the electrical wiring. Therefore, the expert could not refute testimony by Pastabar’s manager that Pastabar suffered additional damage a month after the storm, when electricity was restored and caused “the melting of wires and burning of . . . most of the equipment.” Thus, the expert’s report never rose above the level of speculation … . Pastabar Café Corp. v 343 E. 8th St. Assoc., LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 01305, 1st Dept 2-21-17

 

INSURANCE LAW (ALTHOUGH THE INSURANCE POLICY EXCLUDED WATER DAMAGE AND THE INSURED PROPERTY WAS FLOODED DURING HURRICANE SANDY, THE INSURER’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT REFUTE THE ALLEGATION THE INSURED PROPERTY WAS DAMAGED BY AN ELECTRICAL SHORT A MONTH AFTER THE STORM WHEN ELECTRICITY WAS RESTORED)/CONTRACT LAW (INSURANCE, ALTHOUGH THE INSURANCE POLICY EXCLUDED WATER DAMAGE AND THE INSURED PROPERTY WAS FLOODED DURING HURRICANE SANDY, THE INSURER’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT REFUTE THE ALLEGATION THE INSURED PROPERTY WAS DAMAGED BY AN ELECTRICAL SHORT A MONTH AFTER THE STORM WHEN ELECTRICITY WAS RESTORED)/HURRICANE SANDY (INSURANCE LAW, ALTHOUGH THE INSURANCE POLICY EXCLUDED WATER DAMAGE AND THE INSURED PROPERTY WAS FLOODED DURING HURRICANE SANDY, THE INSURER’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT REFUTE THE ALLEGATION THE INSURED PROPERTY WAS DAMAGED BY AN ELECTRICAL SHORT A MONTH AFTER THE STORM WHEN ELECTRICITY WAS RESTORED)

You might also like
Teacher’s Unsatisfactory Performance Evaluation Annulled—No Supporting Documentation
PURSUANT TO MILITARY LAW, PETITIONER SHOULD HAVE BEEN DEEMED TO HAVE SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED HER NYC POLICE-OFFICER PROBATIONARY PERIOD BY VIRTUE OF HER DEPLOYMENT ON MILITARY DUTY DURING THE PROBATIONARY PERIOD (FIRST DEPT).
CLAIMANT COULD NOT SEEK COMPENSATION FOR PERIODIC FLOODING OF HIS LOT UNDER THE EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEDURE LAW; THERE WAS NO DE JURE TAKING BY THE CITY, AND THE CRITERIA FOR INVERSE CONDEMNATION WERE NOT MET (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, A CABLE TRAY FELL ON HIS HEAD FROM THE TOP OF TWO LADDERS, A SUBCONTRACTOR WAS LIABLE BECAUSE THE CONTRACT DELEGATED THE AUTHORITY TO CONTROL THE WORK TO THE SUBCONTRACTOR, THE LESSEE WAS LIABLE AS AN “OWNER” WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE PIPE WAS A DANGEROUS CONDITION INHERENT IN THE WORK, IT WAS AN AVOIDABLE DANGEROUS CONDITION AND THERE REMAIN QUESTIONS ABOUT MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE THE TRIPPING HAZARD (FIRST DEPT).
Exclusion of Petitioner from Hearing During Testimony of Primary Witness Required Vacation of Award
THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT MUST BE READ AS A WHOLE; THE PROVISION RELIED ON BY THE EMPLOYER TO AVOID PAYING DEFENDANT’S EARNED SALARY UPON TERMINATION APPLIED ONLY TO THOSE CURRENTLY EMPLOYED (ALLOWING PAYMENT TO BE DEFERRED WHEN AVAILABLE FUNDS ARE INSUFFICIENT); A DIFFERENT PROVISION REQUIRING PAYMENT IN CASH APPLIED TO TERMINATED EMPLOYEES (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

MIRANDA WARNINGS AND 710.30 NOTICE NOT REQUIRED; DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT... WRIT OF PROHIBITION PROPER REMEDY FOR TRIAL COURT’S ERRONEOUS EVIDENTIARY...