| Gruenspecht v Balboa Ins. Co. |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 01769 [93 AD3d 482] |
| March 13, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Mark Gruenspecht, Respondent, v Balboa InsuranceCompany et al., Appellants. |
—[*1] Heller, Horowitz & Feit, P.C., New York (Stuart A. Blander of counsel), forrespondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard F. Braun, J.), entered September 6, 2011,which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants' motion to dismissthe complaint in its entirety, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Accepting the allegations in the complaint as true and resolving all inferences in plaintiff'sfavor on this motion to dismiss (see generally Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87 [1994]),the complaint sufficiently states a cause of action for recovery of consequential damages arisingfrom defendants' failure to adjust and pay plaintiff's claim for flood damage to his home in atimely and good-faith manner (seeBi-Economy Mkt., Inc. v Harleysville Ins. Co. of N.Y., 10 NY3d 187, 192-193 [2008]).Defendant was aware that plaintiff had received an offer on his house and that without promptfunding of the repairs needed the offer on the property would be lost (id.).
We have considered defendants' remaining contentions and find them unavailing.Concur—Saxe, J.P., Sweeny, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.