Case Name: Tower Insurance Company of New York, Appellant, v. Joseph Atuana, Respondent, et al., Defendant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2015-04-09
Citations: 127 A.D.3d 454
Docket Number: 
Parties: Tower Insurance Company of New York, Appellant, v Joseph Atuana, Respondent, et al., Defendant.
Judges: Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Mazzarelli, Saxe, ManzanetDaniels and Clark, JJ.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 127
Pages: 454–454

Head Matter:
Tower Insurance Company of New York, Appellant, v Joseph Atuana, Respondent, et al., Defendant.
[4 NYS3d 523]—

Opinion:
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan M. Kenney, J.), entered November 26, 2013, which, inter alia, denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted, and it is declared that plaintiff is not obligated to defend and indemnify the insured defendant under the homeowner's policy issued for his premises, and that the policy was properly cancelled. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
Despite the requirement in his policy and his representation in the application that his premises is a two-family dwelling, defendant insured provided a statement and deposition testimony which sufficiently demonstrated that the building was a three-family dwelling. The deed and city document indicating that the building was a two-family dwelling were irrelevant (see Hermitage Ins. Co. v LaFleur, 100 AD3d 426 [1st Dept 2012]), and the insurers' underwriter affidavit and guidelines established that the misrepresentation in the application was material (id.). The insured's claimed need for discovery provides no basis to forestall summary judgment, given that he neither sought any before the motion court nor now shows that it would have assisted him in opposing the motion.
Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Mazzarelli, Saxe, ManzanetDaniels and Clark, JJ.