You are here: / / INSURER’S DISCLAIMER OF COVERAGE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE IS NOT...
, ,

INSURER’S DISCLAIMER OF COVERAGE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE IS NOT SUFFICIENT PROOF THE TENANT FAILED TO PROCURE THE INSURANCE REQUIRED BY THE LEASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined summary judgment on the breach of contract cause of action should not have been granted. The property owner (the church) in this parking lot slip and fall case alleged that the lessee (Stepping Stones) failed to procure the insurance required by the lease. That allegation was based on the insurer’s disclaimer of coverage. The Fourth Department noted that the disclaimer could be erroneous and was therefore not proof of a breach of the lease:

In denying Stepping Stones’s motion in part and sua sponte granting summary judgment to the Church defendants on the breach of contract claims, the court reasoned that the Church defendants were entitled to judgment on the ground that, “[i]f the insurance carrier provided by Stepping Stones fails to cover the broad coverage demanded by the Lease, then Stepping Stones has breached the Lease agreement.”

On appeal, Stepping Stones addresses only the court’s determination with respect to the breach of contract claims. We agree with Stepping Stones that the court erred in granting summary judgment to the Church defendants on those claims, and we therefore modify the order accordingly. The mere fact that the insurance carrier disclaimed coverage for the accident does not establish as a matter of law that Stepping Stones failed to obtain the necessary coverage. It is possible that the insurance carrier’s disclaimer was improper, and that possibility may be explored by way of a declaratory judgment action … . Strong v St. Thomas Church of Irondequoit, 2017 NY Slip Op 05333, 4th Dept 6-30-17

 

You might also like
CONVICTION BASED SOLELY ON DEFENDANT’S CONFESSION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.
Erroneous Molineux Rulings Required Reversal
SUPREME COURT DISMISSED THE INDICTMENT ON SPEEDY-TRIAL GROUNDS, FINDING THAT THE PEOPLE HAD NOT COMPLIED WITH THEIR DISCOVERY OBLIGATIONS AT THE TIME THE PEOPLE INDICATED THEY WERE READY FOR TRIAL; THE DISMISSAL ORDER WAS NEVER SERVED ON THE PEOPLE SO THE 30-DAY APPEAL PERIOD NEVER STARTED RUNNING RENDERING THE PEOPLE’S APPEAL TIMELY; THE FAILURE TO TURN OVER “DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SERVICES” DOCUMENTS DID NOT VIOLATE THE PEOPLE’S DISCOVERY OBLIGATIONS BECAUSE THE PEOPLE DID NOT POSSESS THOSE DOCUMENTS (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFFS’ CAUSES OF ACTION ALLEGING EXPOSURE TO TOXIC FUMES ARE TIME-BARRED PURSUANT TO CPLR 214-C (FOURTH DEPT).
PETITIONER SEX OFFENDER HAD THE RIGHT TO APPEAL FROM A RULING WHICH GRANTED RELIEF REQUESTED IN THE ALTERNATIVE BUT DENIED THE MORE COMPLETE RELIEF REQUESTED, EVIDENCE SUPPORTED FINDING THAT PETITIONER SUFFERED FROM A MENTAL ABNORMALITY AND REQUIRED A REGIMEN OF STRICT AND INTENSIVE SUPERVISION AND TREATMENT (SIST) (FOURTH DEPT).
BANK WHICH PURPORTEDLY ACCELERATED THE DEBT DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO DO SO, PLAINTIFF BANK ENTITLED ONLY TO THE UNPAID INSTALLMENTS WHICH ACCRUED DURING THE SIX YEARS PRIOR TO COMMENCING THE ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON THE GROUND THAT DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO MAKE AN ADEQUATE SPEEDY TRIAL MOTION (FOURTH DEPT).
THE POLICE DID NOT HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE TO SEARCH THE VEHICLE IN WHICH DEFENDANT WAS A PASSENGER WHEN AN OFFICER ENTERED THE VEHICLE TO RETRIEVE THE REGISTRATION AND SAW A HANDGUN; THE DEFENDANT HAD STANDING TO CONTEST THE SEIZURE BECAUSE OF THE PEOPLE’S RELIANCE ON THE STATUTORY AUTOMOBILE PRESUMPTION; THE HANDGUN SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH 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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

ALTHOUGH NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP EXISTED BETWEEN BROKER AND PLAINTIFF, CAUSE... ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT’S STRICT AND INTENSIVE SUPERVISION AND TREATMENT (SIST)...