Androvette v. Treadwell

New York Court of Appeals

Androvette v. Treadwell

532 N.E.2d 1271, 73 N.Y.2d 746, 536 N.Y.S.2d 43, 1988 N.Y. LEXIS 3326

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 22, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 532 N.E.2d 1271 (Androvette v. Treadwell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Androvette v. Treadwell, 532 N.E.2d 1271, 73 N.Y.2d 746, 536 N.Y.S.2d 43, 1988 N.Y. LEXIS 3326 (N.Y. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the judgment of Supreme Court reinstated.

It is undisputed that the decedent signed a group insurance enrollment and record card in 1978, designating plaintiff (his wife) as beneficiary. At decedent’s request, an employee in the office of the Uniformed Firefighters’ Association, the policyholder, later changed the card by whiting out plaintiff’s name and writing defendant’s name in its place. Decedent did not sign the card at the time this change was made.

Although the lower courts found that this change was made at decedent’s direction and reflected his intent, the lack of a contemporaneous signature by decedent indicating his assent renders the change of beneficiary ineffective under the plain terms of EPTL 13-3.2 (d). The statute plainly requires that the designation of a beneficiary under a group life insurance policy "must be made in writing and signed by the person making the designation” (see, Mohawk Airlines v Peach, 61 AD2d 346). Decedent’s signature, rendered when he originally designated plaintiff as beneficiary, cannot validate his later attempt to change the beneficiary.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur.

[748]*748Order reversed, with costs, and judgment of Supreme Court, Orange County, reinstated in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the judgment of Supreme Court reinstated.

It is undisputed that the decedent signed a group insurance enrollment and record card in 1978, designating plaintiff (his wife) as beneficiary. At decedent’s request, an employee in the office of the Uniformed Firefighters’ Association, the policyholder, later changed the card by whiting out plaintiff’s name and writing defendant’s name in its place. Decedent did not sign the card at the time this change was made.

Although the lower courts found that this change was made at decedent’s direction and reflected his intent, the lack of a contemporaneous signature by decedent indicating his assent renders the change of beneficiary ineffective under the plain terms of EPTL 13-3.2 (d). The statute plainly requires that the designation of a beneficiary under a group life insurance policy "must be made in writing and signed by the person making the designation” (see, Mohawk Airlines v Peach, 61 AD2d 346). Decedent’s signature, rendered when he originally designated plaintiff as beneficiary, cannot validate his later attempt to change the beneficiary.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur.

[748]*748Order reversed, with costs, and judgment of Supreme Court, Orange County, reinstated in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

532 N.E.2d 1271, 73 N.Y.2d 746, 536 N.Y.S.2d 43, 1988 N.Y. LEXIS 3326, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/androvette-v-treadwell-ny-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack