The lower court’s decision granting the insurer’s motion to dismiss parties not named as an insured or additional insured was granted. Ocasio v. Metro Myrtle Ave, LLC, 2025 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5925 (N.Y. App, Div. Oct. 22, 2025).

The plaintiff tripped and fell on a sidewalk in front of premises owned by defendants Metro Myrtle Avenue, LLC and Albert Bialek Associates, Inc. Plaintiff sued Metro and Albert for personal injuries she sustained. Metro and Albert commenced a third-party action for declaratory relief against, among others, the third-party defendant AmGUARD Insurance Company, alleging that AmGUARD was obligated to defend and indemnify them in the main action as additional insureds under a policy issued to the tenants of the subject premises. AmGUARD moved for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint and declaring that it had not duty to defend or indemnify Metro and Albert. The lower court granted AmGUARD’s motion. Metro and Albert appealed.

The appellate court affirmed. Where a third party sought the benefit of coverge, the terms oe the policy had to clearly show such intent. A party was not entitled to coverage if it was not named as an insured or additional insured on the face of the policy as of the date of the accident.

AmGUARD established that neither Metro nor Albert was an insured or additional insured under the policy. In opposition, Metro and Albert failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The mere hope or speculation that evidence sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment might be uncovered during the discovery process was insufficient to deny the motion. Here, Metro and Albert failed to demonstrate that additional discovery might lead to relevant evidence or that facts essential to oppose the motion were exclusively within AmGUARD’s knowledge and control.