You are here: / / QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE FIRE DAMAGED PROPERTY WAS PLAINTIFF’S...

QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE FIRE DAMAGED PROPERTY WAS PLAINTIFF’S RESIDENCE REQUIRED DENIAL OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DISCLAIMER ACTION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this action against a homeowner’s insurance company for disclaiming coverage was properly denied. Coverage for fire damage was disclaimed based upon the allegation the property was not plaintiff’s residence. Apparently plaintiff lived elsewhere, at least part of the time, while the house was being extensively renovated:

​

Plaintiff testified that she slept at the premises on several occasions, an average of two to four nights per week, and that she intended for the premises to be her permanent residence once renovations were completed. During his deposition, Larrea [the insurer’s claim investigator] testified that he obtained a statement from plaintiff shortly after the fire in which she stated that she was not living at the premises. In opposition to the motion, defendant submitted an affidavit from Larrea, who averred that when he interviewed plaintiff by telephone eight days after the fire, she stated that at the time of the fire that she was in the process of relocating from her father’s home to the apartment and, notably, that she had not been to the premises during the two weeks immediately preceding the fire and had stayed overnight at the premises only once.

On this record, plaintiff’s summary judgment motion was properly denied. The Court of Appeals has held that evidence similar to the record in this case presented issues of fact regarding residency that precluded the grant of summary judgment … . Moreover, as Supreme Court correctly held, the contradictory statements that plaintiff made regarding the extent of her own physical presence at the premises are alone sufficient to create an issue of fact that may not be resolved by summary judgment. Sosenko v Allstate Ins. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 08425, Third Dept 11-30-17

 

INSURANCE LAW (QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE FIRE DAMAGED PROPERTY WAS PLAINTIFF’S RESIDENCE REQUIRED DENIAL OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DISCLAIMER ACTION (THIRD DEPT))/RESIDENCE (INSURANCE LAW, QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE FIRE DAMAGED PROPERTY WAS PLAINTIFF’S RESIDENCE REQUIRED DENIAL OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DISCLAIMER ACTION (THIRD DEPT))/DISCLAIMER (INSURANCE LAW, RESIDENCE, QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE FIRE DAMAGED PROPERTY WAS PLAINTIFF’S RESIDENCE REQUIRED DENIAL OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DISCLAIMER ACTION (THIRD DEPT))

You might also like
THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY TO SAVE THE AMENDED PETITION CHALLENGING A USE VARIANCE; THE INTITIAL PETITION FAILED TO NAME A NECESSARY PARTY WHO WAS KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS AND WAS DISMISSED ON THAT GROUND; THE AMENDED PEITITION, WHICH NAMED THE NECESSARY PARTY, WAS DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED; BECAUSE THE PETITIONERS HAD NO DOUBT ABOUT WHO THE NECESSARY PARTY WAS AND HAD NAMED HER IN A PRIOR PETITION, THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE COULD NOT BE INVOKED (THIRD DEPT).
THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT IN THIS CHAIN-REACTION TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE; THE FACT THAT IT WAS SNOWING AND THERE WERE ICY ROAD CONDITIONS DID NOT SUPPORT THE APPLICABILIITY OF THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE AS A MATTER OF LAW (THIRD DEPT). ​
INTERPRETER WAS AN EMPLOYEE, NOT AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR.
Criteria for Interpreting Ambiguous Terms in Separation Agreement
Former Parishioners Did Not Have Standing to Challenge Sale of Church Property Which Had Been Authorized by Supreme Court Pursuant to the Religious Corporation Law
In a Class Action Suit, Class-Representatives’ Failure to Keep In Touch With Their Lawyer Justified Their Withdrawal as Class Representatives
ONCE AN ALCOHOL AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE EVALUATION WAS ORDERED THE CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED TO THE DRUG TREATMENT COURT FOR THE JUDICIAL DIVERSION HEARING, CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).
Fact that Defendant Was Seen With a .25 Caliber Handgun Two and a Half Months Before Charged Shooting Allowed In Evidence to Prove “Identity”

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

FAMILY COURT RELINQUISHED ITS FACT-FINDING FUNCTION TO THE BIASED FORENSIC EVALUATOR... MANNER IN WHICH DECORATIONS WERE STACKED IN A STORE DID NOT PRESENT A FORESEEABLE...