Judge Koeltl
http://nycourts.law.com/CourtDocumentViewer.asp?view=Document&docID=117270
ON OCT. 8, 2003, plaintiff bought a renter’s insurance policy—from defendant insurer—on his leased loft residence. In April 2005, federal agents executed a search warrant and arrested plaintiff. He claimed agents or others stole paintings, money, business records and other items from the loft. In connection with plaintiff’s Aug. 29, 2006, motion for the government’s return of items “seized/confiscated” from the loft, a magistrate judge ruled the government could keep five paintings. Defendant insurer later denied plaintiff’s $167,715 claim as to items identical to those listed as seized by the government or, alternatively, stolen by his co-lessee. The court granted defendant insurer summary judgment on plaintiff’s contract breach claim respecting the five paintings seized by the government. In his ruling as to the paintings the magistrate judge adopted plaintiff’s claim of their possession by the government. Thus, to the extent plaintiff relied on the paintings in his claim against defendant insurer, he was estopped from arguing that federal agents did not seize them. Because plaintiff’s policy did not insure for any loss consisting of conduct by any governmental body, plaintiff has no breach of contract claim against defendant insurer as to the five paintings.