Hudson Meridian Constr. Grp. v. Travelers Cas. Ins. Co. of Am.

1

2023 NY Slip Op 31248(U)

HUDSON MERIDIAN CONSTRUCTION GROUP, LLC, 21 CLARK STREET PROPERTY OWNER, LLC, WATERMARK RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES, LLC, 21 CLARK STREET SENIOR HOUSING, LLC Plaintiff, v. TRAVELERS CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, ASMIR & DENIS CONSTRUCTION, INC., Defendant.

Index No. 655507/2021, MOTION SEQ. No. 004

Supreme Court, New York County

April 18, 2023

Unpublished Opinion

MOTION DATE 03/27/2023

DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION

PRESENT: HON. SABRINA KRAUS, Justice

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 004) 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104 105, 106, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132 were read on this motion to/for JUDGMENT - SUMMARY.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff commenced this action seeking a declaratory judgment that Travelers Property Casualty Co. of America (Travelers) afford additional insured coverage to Plaintiff and ancillary monetary relief. The claims herein relate to an underlying action Andrea Barriga Sanchez v. Tishman Speyer Properties. LP, Hudson Meridian Group Construction LLC, 21 Clark Street Property' Owner, LLC, Kayne Anderson Real Estate Advisors, LLC, Freshwater Group LLC, Watermark Retirement Communities, LLC and 21 Clark Street Senior Housing, LLC, Index No 500227/2021 (The Sanchez Action).

PENDING MOTION

Travelers moves pursuant to CPLR § 3212 for summary judgment and an order providing that plaintiff's demand for a declaration that Travelers has a duty to defend it in an underlying action is moot. Travelers asserts that there is no controversy between the parties as to the duty to defend as Travelers has now agreed to defend plaintiff in the underlying action, and has already reimbursed plaintiff for all prior defense costs.

Travelers also seeks dismissal based on its assertion that plaintiffs demand for a declaration that Travelers must indemnify plaintiff in the underlying action is not ripe.

The motion was fully briefed and marked submitted on March 27 2023. For the reasons stated below, the motion is granted.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs request for a declaration that Travelers must provide a defense in connection with the underlying matter is moot.

A court's jurisdiction extends only to live controversies. Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce v Pataki, 100 N.Y.2d 801, 810-811(2003). Thus, a court will not ordinarily entertain a matter where the specific controversy between the parties is no longer existent. Under the mootness doctrine, a court is ordinarily precluded from considering questions which, although once live, have become moot by a change in circumstances. Kennedy v Suffolk County, 211 A.D.3d 926 (2d Dep't 2022).

A particular question of law is academic when it appears that the rights of the parties cannot be affected by the court's decision, and therefore any determination by the court in resolving the question would be purely advisory. Town of Islip v. Cuomo, 147 A.D.2d 56 (2d Dep't 1989).

Here there is no justiciable issue concerning the duty to defend. Plaintiff made a demand that Travelers defend it in connection with the underlying action. Travelers has now accepted that duty. Plaintiff also made demand for reimbursement of prior defense costs-Travelers paid it. There is nothing to litigate and no controversy between the parties as to the duty to defend.

Additionally plaintiff has not been found liable for negligence in the underlying action at this time, and as such, the issue as to the duty to indemnify is not ripe for...