Benny's Famous Pizza Plus Inc. v Security Natl. Ins. Co.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Benny's Famous Pizza Plus Inc. v Security Natl. Ins. Co. 2021 NY Slip Op 31963(U) July 1, 2021 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: 512131/2020 Judge: Lillian Wan Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. XEDNI [* 1] NYSCEF DOC. NO. SUPREM COUNTY 32 -· BENNY'S DEVICRE COURT FO OF KINGS: SUOMAF PART THE STA E PIZA FO 17 PLUS WEN YORK :FECSYN .ON 5123/0 07/ 2 1 Index No.: 5123/0 Motion Date: 5/12 Motion Seq.: 0 1 X INC., l P i a ntif:t: DECIS ON - n aiga stSECURITY TAN -· LANOI INSURANCE MPOC AND ORDE ANY, Defendant. X The following defilo d u c mens, tliste y b Y N d SCEF documennumb t er (Motion 0 1 ) ,71-5 dan 9 2 werre e ad on the n feed dants' motion seki e ng dismissa of the l o c mplaint. 12 7 2 - is a pre-answer motion y b the defendant, u ceS rity National Insurance o C mpany This (hereinafterSecurity) to i d , smiss the o c mplapursuan int to CPLR t §123 l(l ()a ) s ab de on o d u c mentary evidence in the rm fo ofthe commerciinsuran al g a re ce m e n e t between the parties, dan pursuan to CPLR t §2 3 1 ( )7(a) for i fa lure to staa tu ac e se ofaction. The complaico nntai t ns onecause ofaction r fo r b h cae ofo c ntrat c dan , seeks insurancco e verage for busin ess loss and extra expensel al sl deg y incurred because ofthe COVID-19 global pandemic. Forthe reasons set forthbelow,the defendant's motion is granted. In support ofthe motion, the n feed n ad t submits the plei da nginsura s, gr a m e nn e ce t, o G vernor u C omo'x E su ce tive Orders20.3, 20 .6, ,7.20 a n d 20 .8, and transcripts ofo c urt proci de g s nn a d ordr e of si d smissa in othe ls ac r s e thathavr d ea s e sed the issue pres senhe ter d .e n A insurancpolic e was y issue y b uri ceS d ty to the plaintiff t ceff ive, p eS temr eb 3 0 , 9 1 0 2 to p eS temr eb , 0 3 , 0 2 whic inc h lud o c de verega for loss ofbusine inc ss oanme d x e tra x e penses based on the 91-VIDOC panm ed ic. Inresponse to the plaintiff' claim s undr e the insuranec polic the y n feed , t and sentthe plaintiff a n ed iallette t ad r de April , 1 20 , whicsta h t in ed sum and substan tha ce, the tclaim was not o c verde undr e the virus exclusion ofthe polic dan y tha, t there was no i d ret c ph ysic loss l a or egaamd to the prope as r rety quire by the d terms ofthe o c ntrat c Th . e plaintiff commenced this t ca ion, alleging thatu ceS rity r b h cae de the insurance th gr a m e n e t with respeto ctthe plaintiff' res staubu rasine nt loc ss atat ed 4 5 1 13 Avenue in the o C unty ofi K ngsi C , ty n a d State ofw eN o Y rk, by n ed ying the l c i a m. The plaintiff' o c mpla s l al is eg ntthait t is entitle to o c d verega undr e the "Aditional Coverages" r fo "Civil u A thority' ' provision of the insuran agrem ce ent. The i c vil authority 1 1 of6 of 7 [* 2] [* 3] [* 4] [* 5] [* 6] [* 7]

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.