Ryan A. Slayko, Respondent v. Security Mutual Insurance Company, Appellant, Defendant

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, holding that the intentional‑act exclusion does not apply because the conduct was not inherently harmful, and that the criminal‑activity exclusion in the homeowner’s policy is enforceable as a matter of public policy. Accordingly, the insurer’s cross‑motion for summary judgment was granted.