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.
Judith KIRKPATRICK, Respondent, v. STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY, Appellant.
In an action to recover the proceeds of an insurance policy, the defendant appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.), dated October 15, 1997, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and (2) an order of the same court, dated March 16, 1998, which denied its motion, in effect, to renew.
ORDERED that the orders are affirmed, with one bill of costs.
The defendant contends that an insurance policy it issued to the plaintiff was void due to misrepresentations and false statements made by the plaintiff on the insurance application and at her examination under oath, respectively. However, with regard to the insurance application, the defendant has failed to demonstrate that, as a matter of law, the misinformation was material (see, Sonkin Assocs. v. Columbian Mut. Life Ins. Co., 150 A.D.2d 764, 765, 541 N.Y.S.2d 611; Ferris v. Columbian Mut. Ins. Co., 190 A.D.2d 1061, 1063, 593 N.Y.S.2d 683; Wittner v. IDS Ins. Co., 96 A.D.2d 1053, 466 N.Y.S.2d 480; Insurance Law § 3105[b] ). With regard to the plaintiff's false statements made at her examination under oath, the defendant has failed to demonstrate, as a matter of law, that the plaintiff intended to deceive or defraud it when she made the statements (see, Deitsch Textiles v. New York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assn., 62 N.Y.2d 999, 1001, 479 N.Y.S.2d 487, 468 N.E.2d 669; Jonari Mgt. Corp. v. St. Paul Fire & Mar. Ins. Co., 58 N.Y.2d 408, 417, 461 N.Y.S.2d 760, 448 N.E.2d 427; Fine v. Bellefonte Underwriters Ins. Co., 758 F.2d 50 [2d Cir.1985], cert. denied 474 U.S. 826, 106 S.Ct. 86, 88 L.Ed.2d 70).
The court also properly denied the defendant's motion, in effect, to renew, as the additional evidence was neither newly discovered nor unavailable to the defendant at the time of the prior motion (see generally, Cannistra v. Gibbons, 224 A.D.2d 570, 571, 639 N.Y.S.2d 48; Foley v. Roche, 68 A.D.2d 558, 568, 418 N.Y.S.2d 588).
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
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: November 09, 1998
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)