Although really only a procedural decision,Matz v Sol Klein P.A., Inc.  2019 NY Slip Op 30166(U) January 17, 2019  Supreme Court, New York County  Docket Number: 155506/2016
Judge: Kathryn E. Freed  does discuss the limits of a broker’s / adjuster’s obligations.  Here, Sol Klein argues that it had no responsibility to advise the insured of a second policy which might have covered their loss.  Sol Klein unsuccessfully moved to dismiss and here unsuccessfully moves to reargue.

“Construing the complaint in a light most favorable to plaintiff[s], it sets forth a
cause of action in negligence as against Klein Inc. based on its failure to properly
adjust their claim. Specifically, as noted above, plaintiffs allege that Klein Inc.
failed to inform Aboulafia and the Aboulafia Firm about the existence of the
Technology Policy, despite the fact that they knew about the same. Klein Inc.
asserts, in effect, that its retainer agreement constitutes “documentary evidence”
precluding the claims against it because it only required the company to adjust the
claim and not to notify the Aboulafia Firm of any course of action it should take.
The agreement provides, inter alia, that it is “valid only if both it and [the] attached
notice of cancellation are written in the same language as that principally used in
the oral negotiations and presentation.” Doc. 28. Since the agreement does not
contain any details about any oral negotiations or presentation, it clearly cannot be
considered “documentary evidence” pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a)(I ). Nor does
Klein’s affidavit in support of the motion constitute “documentary evidence.” See,
e.g., J.A. Lee Electric, Inc. v City of New York, 119 AD3d 652 (2d Dept 2014);
Flowers v 73rd Townhouse, LLC, 99 AD3d 431 (JS1 Dept2012).

Doc. 39, at 8-9.
Klein Inc. moves for reargument of the initial motion, asserting that this Court erred in refusing to dismiss the complaint against him based on CPLR 3211 (a)( 1) (documentary evidence) and (a)(7) (failure to state a cause of action).

A motion for reargument pursuant to CPLR 2221 ( d) is designed to afford a party an opportunity to demonstrate that, in issuing a prior order, the court overlooked relevant facts or that it misapplied a controlling principle oflaw. See Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558, 567 (1st Dept 1979). “Reargument is not designed to afford the unsuccessful party successive opportunities to reargue issues previously decided or to present arguments different from those originally asserted.” William P. Pahl Equip. Corp. v Kassis, 182 AD2d 22, 27 (1st Dept 1992) (citations omitted).  Thus, the motion is not to be used as a vehicle for rehashing what was already argued or for raising new questions. See Simpson v Loehmann, 21 NY2d 990, 990 ( 1968).

Klein Inc. argues that it had no duty to advise Aboulafia or the Aboulafia Firm about the claim submitted to TIC, which is what it argued in the initial motion. Doc. 9, at par. 16. Further, it sets forth no authority for this argument. Moreover, as this Court stated in the initial order, Klein Inc. did not submit documentary evidence warranting dismissal of the negligence claim against it. Thus, Klein Inc. ‘s motion for reargument is denied.”