The City of New York, Plaintiff–Respondent–Appellant, v. The National Catholic Risk Retention Group, Inc., et al., Defendants–Appellants–Respondents. (2016)

_

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Frank P. Nervo, J.), entered April 3, 2015, which, upon reargument, vacated the prior order and denied the parties' motions for summary judgment, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant plaintiff's motion and declare that, with respect to the underlying personal injury action, plaintiff (the City) is an additional insured on the policy issued to defendant St. Vincent's Service, Inc. by defendant National Catholic Risk Retention Group, Inc., and is entitled to a defense in the underlying action, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The plaintiff in the underlying action alleges that children in her care were wrongfully removed from her home.  The additional insured endorsement to the policy issued to St. Vincent's by National Catholic Risk Retention Group limits coverage for additional insureds to liability that arises out of St. Vincent's operations.  Because the underlying complaint alleges that St. Vincent's acted wrongfully in connection with the removal, and because the underlying claims against plaintiff arise out of a placement made upon the recommendation of St. Vincent's, plaintiff is entitled to a defense under the policy (see Federal Ins. Co. v. Koslowski, 18 AD3d 33, 40 [1st Dept 2005].

_

CLERK