Alterman v. Home Insurance

Headnote

Insurance — when policies of fire insurance insuring building and extension thereto do not cover separate building on rear of lot.

Alterman v. Home Ins. Co. of N. Y., 195 App. Div. 151 , affirmed.

Appeal, by permission, from a judgment, entered April 13, 1921, upon an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, which reversed a determination of the Appellate Term affirming a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York in favor of plaintiff and directed a dismissal of the complaint. The action was to recover upon two policies of fire insurance. The property insured in and by said policies is described as follows: the brick building and extension thereto, occupied as store and dwelling, situated at No. 529 East Eleventh Street, Borough of Manhattan, City of New York, including also the fixtures, also stoop, sidewalk, mason and ironwork in front and fences and yard fixtures in rear thereof.” There were two brick buildings on the lot, the larger one four stories in height, located on the front, and the other, the smaller one, two stories in height, located on the rear, the latter distant from the former about twenty-five feet, and physically entirely separate and detached therefrom. A fire occurred in the rear building and the question was whether the loss was covered. The Appellate Division held that the particular description of the insured property as the brick building and extension thereto, occupied as store and dwelling, situate at No,

529 East Eleventh 'street, accompanied by the further stipulation that said "building was the only building located on said premises which was occupied as a store and dwelling, and the fire not having occurred therein, and the same being uninjured, are insurmountable obstacles in the path of plaintiff’s recovery.