Schlesinger v. PG Insurance
Opinion of the Court
—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered oh or about November 22, 1993, which granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability and denied defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The court properly determined, as a matter of law, that plaintiffs had an insurable interest in the premises at the time of the loss because plaintiffs remained liable on the Citibank note and the premises were still subject to the Citibank mortgage. On this basis, however, plaintiffs can recover only to the extent they remained liable under the mortgage on the date of the loss. (Waring v Loder, 53 NY 581.)
The court erred in finding that plaintiffs had an ownership interest in the premises at the time of the loss even though the premises had previously been sold pursuant to a foreclosure sale (Cone v Niagara Fire Ins. Co., 60 NY 619). Contrary to the court’s holding, the settlement between the parties to the foreclosure action, after the fire occurred, which, by a "so ordered” stipulation, restored title to the premises to plaintiffs and declared the foreclosure sale a nullity, did not retroactively invalidate the foreclosure sale so as to alter the rights and obligations of defendant insurer, a stranger to that stipulation of settlement.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.