Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
EXCELSIOR INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AUBURN LOCAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Defendant-Respondent.
Plaintiff commenced this subrogation action seeking recovery of $175,000 that it paid to its insured for water, smoke and loss of use damages resulting from a fire in an adjoining building owned by defendant. Plaintiff alleged that the fire was caused by arson and that the damages to the building of plaintiff's insured resulted from defendant's negligence. According to plaintiff, defendant's building was in a state of disrepair and in violation of building codes, contained flammable debris and was not adequately secured to minimize the risk of criminal entry. Supreme Court properly denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment. Although plaintiff met its initial burden by establishing its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, defendant raised triable issues of fact (see Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595, 404 N.E.2d 718). Defendant submitted evidence establishing that the alleged code violations had been addressed and remedied, that most of the debris in the building had been removed, and that the building was reasonably secure. Moreover, defendant established that the alleged fire hazard resulted from the design of the building rather than any negligence of defendant. Defendant also raised an issue of fact whether the arson was an unforeseeable criminal act of a third party (see Iannelli v. Powers, 114 A.D.2d 157, 161-162, 498 N.Y.S.2d 377, lv. denied 68 N.Y.2d 604, 506 N.Y.S.2d 1027, 497 N.E.2d 707).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.
MEMORANDUM:
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: May 03, 2002
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)