Majority
The motion court properly granted summary judgment to CastlePoint, based on its determination that the premises contained a basement apartment rendering it a “three family” dwelling, as opposed to the “two family” designation that was listed on the insurance application (see Dauria v CastlePoint Ins. Co., 104 AD3d 406 , 406-407 [1st Dept 2013], appeal dismissed 24 NY3d 1008 [2014]). As this Court found in Dauria, the question “# Families” on an insurance application means the number of separate dwelling units in the building (id. at 406-407). CastlePoint also demonstrated, through the insureds’ admission in a statement to CastlePoint’s investigator and the investigator’s inspection of the premises, that the home was a three-family dwelling, and thus not covered by the policy, rather than a two-family dwelling, which would be covered by the policy (Castlepoint Ins. Co. v Jaipersaud, 127 AD3d 401 , 401 [1st Dept 2015]; Lema v Tower Ins. Co. of N.Y., 119 AD3d 657 , 658 [2d Dept 2014]).
Based on the lack of coverage, there is no need to address the issue of material misrepresentation.
Concur — Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Richter and Gesmer, JJ.
Cases cited
- Dauria v. Castlepoint Insurance 24 NY3d 1008 p. 659
- Castlepoint Insurance v. Jaipersaud 127 AD3d 401 at 401 p. 659
- Lema v. Tower Insurance 119 AD3d 657 at 658 p. 659