From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Moses v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 20, 2001
286 A.D.2d 427 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

Submitted June 27, 2001.

August 20, 2001.

In an action to recover the proceeds of a life insurance policy, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), dated March 16, 2001, as denied that branch of her motion which was for summary judgment.

Viders Wiesen, Carle Place, N.Y. (Kenneth B. Wiesen of counsel), for appellant.

Moran D'Arcambal, New York, N.Y. (Aimee P. Levine of counsel), for respondent.

Before: LAWRENCE J. BRACKEN, P.J., WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, ANITA R. FLORIO, HOWARD MILLER, JJ.


ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

After the plaintiff made out a prima facie case for summary judgment, the defendant submitted sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the insured made material misrepresentations on his application for life insurance (see, Insurance Law 3105[b]; Kirkpatrick v. State Farm Fire Cas., 255 A.D.2d 363; Radin v. New York Life Ins., 243 A.D.2d 550; Smirlock Realty Corp. v. Title Guar. Co., 70 A.D.2d 455). Accordingly, that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for summary judgment was properly denied.

We reject the defendant's contention that the plaintiff's conduct in bringing this appeal was frivolous (see, 22 NYCRR 130.1.1).


Summaries of

Moses v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 20, 2001
286 A.D.2d 427 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Moses v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.

Case Details

Full title:AUDREY COBB MOSES, APPELLANT, v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Aug 20, 2001

Citations

286 A.D.2d 427 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
729 N.Y.S.2d 901

Citing Cases

In the Matter of Ronis v. Oganjanov

The father's remaining contentions either are unpreserved for appellate review, or without merit. We decline…