|Ilico Jewelry, Inc. v Hanover Ins. Co.|
|2016 NY Slip Op 00049 [135 AD3d 449]|
|January 7, 2016|
|Appellate Division, First Department|
|Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.|
| Ilico Jewelry, Inc., Respondent,|
Hanover Insurance Company, Appellant.
Camacho Mauro Mulholland, LLP, New York (Gregory G. Vetter of counsel), for appellant.
Wimpfheimer & Wimpfheimer, New York (Michael Wimpfheimer of counsel), for respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J.) entered August 25, 2014, which denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The court properly denied defendant insurance company's motion, in this action where plaintiff seeks coverage under its policy with defendant for jewels that were allegedly stolen from plaintiff's principal. Questions of fact exist as to the meaning of all the terms contained within the "Personal Conveyance Clause" exclusion that must be resolved by a trier of fact (see e.g. Seaboard Sur. Co. v Gillette Co., 64 NY2d 304, 311-312 ; cf. DMP Contr. Corp. v Essex Ins. Co., 76 AD3d 844 [1st Dept 2010]).
We have considered defendant's remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Richter and Gische, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2014 NY Slip Op 32272(U).]