Sanginito v National Grange Mut. Ins. Co.
2008 NY Slip Op 05313 [52 AD3d 267] [52 AD3d 267]
June 10, 2008
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
As corrected through Wednesday, August 13, 2008


John Sanginito et al., Appellants,
v
National Grange Mutual Insurance Company, Respondent.

—[*1] Litchfield Cavo LLP, New York (Vincent J. Velardo of counsel), for appellants.

Law Office of Eric N. Wolpin, New York (Thomas G. Connolly of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard H. Sherman, J.), entered August 30, 2007, which denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

To negate coverage by virtue of an exclusion, an insurer must establish that the exclusion is stated in clear and unmistakable language, is subject to no other reasonable interpretations, and applies in the particular case (Continental Cas. Co. v Rapid-American Corp., 80 NY2d 640, 652 [1993]).

We agree with the motion court that the exclusion is not clear and unambiguous. Further, there are unresolved questions of fact remaining as to whether or not the business purpose of and work performed by plaintiffs excluded them from coverage under the policy. Concur—Lippman, P.J., Williams, Moskowitz and Acosta, JJ.