Court Opinion

ID: 5881510
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-13 02:18:28.008449+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:45:01.338556
License: Public Domain

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered on or about August 25, 2011, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, deemed an appeal from the judgment, same court and Justice, entered October 18, 2011, dismissing the complaint (CFLR 5501 [c]), and, so considered, the judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Flaintiff failed to state a cause of action based on defendant’s failure to procure insurance coverage for a delay in obtaining temporary certificates of occupancy (TCO coverage) for the subject condominiums. Absent a specific request for the insurance, defendant, as broker, had no duty to obtain coverage (see Hoffend & Sons, Inc. v Rose & Kiernan, Inc., 7 NY3d 152, 157-158 [2006]). Here, there is no evidence that plaintiff specifically requested that defendant obtain TCO coverage. Nor was there a special relationship between the parties (see Murphy v Kuhn, 90 NY2d 266, 272 [1997]).
We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Gonzalez, EJ., Saxe, Catterson, Acosta and Gische, JJ.