Opinion
14987 Index No. 156716/19 Case No. 2021–01957
01-06-2022
Praim SINGH et al., Plaintiffs–Respondents, v. WESCO INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant–Appellant.
Mound Cotton Wollan & Greengrass, LLP, New York (Kevin F. Buckley of counsel), for appellant. Law Office of Craig A. Blumberg, New York (Craig A. Blumberg of counsel), for respondents.
Mound Cotton Wollan & Greengrass, LLP, New York (Kevin F. Buckley of counsel), for appellant.
Law Office of Craig A. Blumberg, New York (Craig A. Blumberg of counsel), for respondents.
Kern, J.P., Mazzarelli, Gesmer, González, Higgitt, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene P. Bluth, J.), entered January 4, 2021, which granted plaintiffs’ cross motion for leave to amend the complaint and denied defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the complaint (see Lanpont v. Savvas Cab Corp., Inc., 244 A.D.2d 208, 209, 664 N.Y.S.2d 285 [1st Dept. 1997] ). Plaintiffs’ proposed amendments, which added allegations in connection with the policy language "Additional Coverage–Collapse," were sufficient to state a cause of action for breach of an insurance contract in connection with a loss caused by a building collapse (see Joel v. Weber, 166 A.D.2d 130, 138, 569 N.Y.S.2d 955 [1st Dept. 1991] ). Furthermore, because discovery has not been completed, it cannot be said at this stage of the litigation that the allegations are "patently insufficient" on their face (see Hospital for Joint Diseases Orthopaedic Inst. v. Katsikis Envtl. Contrs., Inc., 173 A.D.2d 210, 210, 569 N.Y.S.2d 91 [1st Dept. 1991] ).
Nor is defendant insurer's claim of prejudice based on the new allegations availing at this point in the action. Although the building had already been demolished by the time plaintiffs cross-moved for leave to amend, defendant's disclaimer letter, issued 17 months after the loss, stated that it had begun an investigation four days after the loss.
In light of its determination on the cross motion for leave to amend the complaint, Supreme Court properly denied defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint as moot.