The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 003) 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 143, 144 were read on this motion for SUMMARY JUDGMENT. The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 004) 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 145 were read on this motion for SUMMARY JUDGMENT. DECISION ORDER ON MOTION Upon the foregoing documents, it is hereby ordered that defendants’ motions for summary judgment are hereby granted. This insurance coverage dispute arises out of claimed property damage to plaintiffs’ building located at 154 8th Avenue, New York, New York (“the Premises”). The Premises is a four-story, mixed use building with a brick exterior. On August 6, 2018, portions of the Premises’ outer facade collapsed, causing bricks to fall onto the sidewalk below. As a result of this collapse, various city agencies responded, including the Department of Buildings (“DOB”), which ordered that a sidewalk shed be immediately installed for protection. A sidewalk shed was installed later that day. Plaintiffs then submitted separate coverage claims to defendants Wesco Insurance Company (“Wesco”) and Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company (“Union”). Both Wesco and Union denied such claims. This case boils down to one dispute: Both the Wesco policy and the Union policy have identical language indicating that a condition to coverage is that as a result of the damage, the building could not be used for its intended purpose. Plaintiffs go through painstaking efforts to argue that there is no temporal limitation on this requirement, maintaining that there were four hours in which access to the Premises was restricted while the sidewalk shed was being erected. However, this Court finds that an inconvenience of a few hours does not rise to the level required to demonstrate that the building could not be used for its intended purpose. Moreover, the record demonstrates that a vacate order was never issued for the Premises, and that none of the Premises’ tenants withheld or declined to pay rent as a result of such inconvenience. Thus, for the reasons herein, Wesco and Union’s motions for summary judgment are both granted, and the Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing the complaint in its entirety. CHECK ONE: X CASE DISPOSED NON-FINAL DISPOSITION X GRANTED DENIED GRANTED IN PART OTHER APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE Dated: September 23, 2021
