Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Abbas NAGHAVI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered February 17, 1998, which, in an action to recover under a disability insurance policy, granted defendant insurer's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The uncontroverted affidavit of defendant's underwriter, accompanied by a page from defendant's underwriting manual stating that no disability policy would be issued to any person earning less than $16,000 per year, established, as a matter of law, the materiality of plaintiff's misrepresentation in his application that his earned income for the prior and current years was and would be $100,000 (Insurance Law § 3105[b], [c]; see, DiGrazia v. United States Life Ins. Co., 170 A.D.2d 246, 247, 565 N.Y.S.2d 525). Although plaintiff contends that when commissions he allegedly earned from business activities abroad are taken into account, he actually did have annual income of $100,000 in the years in question, we deem him to be bound by his contrary representations in the income tax returns he filed for those years, the application for insurance having defined “earned income” in terms of amounts “reportable for personal federal income tax purposes” (see, Meyer v. Insurance Co., 1998 U.S. Dist LEXIS 15863, at *2, *32-*34, 97 Civ 4678 [AJP], 1998 WL 709854; see also, Matter of Heller v. New York State Tax Commn., 116 A.D.2d 901, 902, 498 N.Y.S.2d 211). Although any oral communication by plaintiff to the soliciting insurance agent not reflected in, or inconsistent with, the application would in any event not be binding on defendant, in view of the limitations on the agent's authority stated in the application (see, DiGrazia v. United States Life Ins. Co., supra, at 247-248, 565 N.Y.S.2d 525), we further note that plaintiff does not allege that he ever made any statement to the agent clarifying that he considered the portion of his income earned abroad not to be reportable for tax purposes.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: April 20, 1999
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)