Allcity Insurance v. Adolph

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Allcity Insurance v. Adolph

243 A.D.2d 398, 664 N.Y.S.2d 548, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10746

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 28, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 243 A.D.2d 398 (Allcity Insurance v. Adolph) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Allcity Insurance v. Adolph, 243 A.D.2d 398, 664 N.Y.S.2d 548, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10746 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered on or about July 31, 1996, which, after a nonjury trial, held that plaintiff insurer is not entitled to rescission of the subject multi-peril insurance policy for a multiple dwelling, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The materiality of a misrepresentation, which must be determined as of the date the policy was issued, “is ordinarily [399]*399a question of fact, [unless] the evidence of the materiality * * * is clear and substantially uncontradicted” (Interested Underwriters at Lloyd’s v H.D.I. Ill Assocs., 213 AD2d 246, 247). Here, the question of whether the misrepresentation involved was material was appropriately found to be one of fact. The evidence supports the trial court’s factual finding that the misrepresentation herein was not material and we decline to disturb it. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Rubin, Tom, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered on or about July 31, 1996, which, after a nonjury trial, held that plaintiff insurer is not entitled to rescission of the subject multi-peril insurance policy for a multiple dwelling, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The materiality of a misrepresentation, which must be determined as of the date the policy was issued, “is ordinarily [399]*399a question of fact, [unless] the evidence of the materiality * * * is clear and substantially uncontradicted” (Interested Underwriters at Lloyd’s v H.D.I. Ill Assocs., 213 AD2d 246, 247). Here, the question of whether the misrepresentation involved was material was appropriately found to be one of fact. The evidence supports the trial court’s factual finding that the misrepresentation herein was not material and we decline to disturb it. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Rubin, Tom, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 A.D.2d 398, 664 N.Y.S.2d 548, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10746, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allcity-insurance-v-adolph-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack