Opinion
15690 Index No. 152694/16 Case No. 2020–02545
04-12-2022
TOWER INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Fitz RICHARDSON, Defendant–Appellant, Ingrid Crichlow, Defendant.
Alter & Barraro, Brooklyn (Bernard Mitchell Alter of counsel), for appellant. The Dillion Law Firm, LLP, New York (Thomas Dillion of counsel), for respondent.
Alter & Barraro, Brooklyn (Bernard Mitchell Alter of counsel), for appellant.
The Dillion Law Firm, LLP, New York (Thomas Dillion of counsel), for respondent.
Renwick, J.P., Friedman, Moulton, Mendez, Pitt, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alan C. Marin, J.), entered November 8, 2019, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, upon renewal, granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment declaring that plaintiff does not have a duty to defend or indemnify defendant Fitz Richardson in the underlying personal injury action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff Tower Insurance Company was properly granted summary judgment declaring it has no obligation to defend or indemnify defendant Richardson in the underlying personal injury action, as the Tower Policy does not cover bodily injury claims stemming from accidents occurring at the premises if it contains more than two family units. As Richardson's premises was undisputedly a three-family dwelling, it was not covered under the insurance policy issued by plaintiff (see Almonte v. CastlePoint Ins. Co., 140 A.D.3d 658, 33 N.Y.S.3d 718 [1st Dept. 2016] ). The doctrine of equitable estoppel does not apply to bar plaintiff from denying coverage where none exists ( QBE Ams., Inc. v. ACE Am. Ins. Co., 164 A.D.3d 1136, 1139, 84 N.Y.S.3d 110 [1st Dept. 2018] ).