OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Stanislaw Koczwara, the owner of a multi-unit residential building in Brooklyn, brought this action against his homeowner’s insurance carrier, defendant Nationwide General Insurance Company (Nationwide), after it declined to cover the losses he incurred as a result of a November 8, 2018 fire in the building. Now before the Court are the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. (Dkt. Nos. 44, 51.) The material facts, which cannot be disputed, are simple: In his insurance application, plaintiff stated that his property had three units, with three families living in them. The policy that Nationwide issued to him covered “one, two, three or four-family” dwellings. In fact, plaintiff’s building had at least six units, rented to unrelated tenants. After the fire, Nationwide discovered the additional units and denied coverage. As explained below, Nationwide was entitled to do so and consequently will be granted summary judgment. I.BACKGROUND A. Factual Background The following facts, which unless otherwise noted are undisputed, are taken from (i)defendant’s Statement of Material Facts, filed pursuant to Local Civil Rule 56.1 (Def. 56.1 St.)(Dkt. No. 44-1); (ii) the underlying evidentiary materials, including the declaration of Roy A. Mura (Mura Decl.) (Dkt. No. 44-2), the affidavit of John Loftus (Loftus Aff.) (Dkt. No. 44-3), and their exhibits; (iii) plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Pl. 56.1 St.) (Dkt. No. 49); (iv) the underlying evidentiary materials, which are attached to the declaration of Stanislaw Koczwara (Dkt. No. 54) and include the Affirmation of Stanislaw Koczwara (Pl. Aff.) (Dkt. No. 54 at ECF page 46); (v) defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Purported Statement of Material Facts (Dkt. No. 58); and (vi) the reply declaration of Roy A. Mura (Dkt. No. 55). Plaintiff owns a three-story property at 37 Jewel Street, Brooklyn, New York (the Subject Property). Def. 56.1 St. 2. On April 12, 2013, he signed an application for a Nationwide homeowner’s insurance policy to cover the Subject Property. Id. 3. In the application, plaintiff expressly represented that there were three “families” and three “units” in the building. Id. 4; Loftus Aff. 8 & Ex. A. Later that month, defendant issued homeowner’s policy No. 66 31 HO 674387 (the Policy) to plaintiff. Def. 56.1 St. 7; Loftus Aff. 9. Nationwide’s underwriting policies at that time prohibited the issuance of a homeowner’s policy for a property that had more than four units. Def. 56.1 St. 6; Loftus Aff. 24 & Ex. D. Plaintiff’s Policy, which was renewed on February 26, 2018 for the period April 15, 2018-April 15, 2019, see Loftus Aff. 10 & Ex. B (copy of Policy as renewed), expressly covered only “the residence premises,” defined in the Policy as the “one, two, three or four-family dwelling” at “the address shown on the Declarations.” Policy Form HE-31-F, at A2, B1 (all bolded Policy text as in the original).1 On November 8, 2018, there was a fire at the Subject Property. Def. 56.1 St. 27, and plaintiff made a claim under the Policy. Mura Decl. 11. Thereafter, Nationwide learned that each floor of the building had two apartment units. Def. 56.1 St. 21; Pl. 56.1 St. 21 (conceding the fact but arguing that it is “irrelevant”).2 Plaintiff lived in a unit on the first floor and rented the others, each of which had a separate entrance and was rented pursuant to a separate lease. Def. 56.1 St.
19-26, 34; Pl. 56.1 St.
