Continental Insurance v. Helmsley Enterprises, Inc.

211 A.D.2d 589, 622 N.Y.S.2d 20, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 849
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 31, 1995
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 211 A.D.2d 589 (Continental Insurance v. Helmsley Enterprises, Inc.) 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
Continental Insurance v. Helmsley Enterprises, Inc., 211 A.D.2d 589, 622 N.Y.S.2d 20, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 849 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beverly Cohen, J.), entered on or about November 3, 1993, which, inter alia, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff’s cross-motion for leave to serve an amended complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The IAS Court properly determined that plaintiff waived its right to seek rescission of the contract of insurance when it knowingly accepted premium payments for several months following discovery of the alleged misrepresentations upon which it claimed to have relied when it issued the policies. Plaintiff’s claimed attempt to both accept premiums and reserve its right to rescind is unenforceable for lack of mutuality and timeliness (see, McNaught v Equitable Life Assur. Socy., 136 App Div 774). Where an insurer accepts premiums after learning of an event allowing for cancellation of the policy, the insurer has waived the right to cancel or rescind (see, Zeldman v Mutual Life Ins. Co., 269 App Div 53).

Further, the motions here for summary judgment were the first made by the moving parties and therefore are not subject to any bar precluding successive motions for summary judgment (compare, Echeverri v Flushing Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 123 AD2d 818). Finally, leave to serve a third amended complaint four years after the start of litigation, and after all disclosure had been completed, to assert, for the very first time, causes of action for damages was properly denied by the IAS Court in view of the obvious lack of merit of the causes. Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin and Williams, JJ.

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

Related

Associated Indus. Ins. Co., Inc. v. Farahnik
2025 NY Slip Op 03760 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Alexi Home Design, Inc. v. Union Mut. Fire Ins. Co.
2024 NY Slip Op 00121 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
Rivera v. Sovereign Bank
976 F. Supp. 2d 270 (E.D. New York, 2013)
United States Life Insurance v. Blumenfeld
92 A.D.3d 487 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. Dukoff
674 F. Supp. 2d 401 (E.D. New York, 2009)
Precision Auto Accessories, Inc. v. Utica First Insurance
52 A.D.3d 1198 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Continental Insurance Co. v. Kingston
2005 UT App 233 (Court of Appeals of Utah, 2005)
Briggs v. Allstate Insurance
1 A.D.2d 392 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Chicago Ins. Co. v. Kreitzer & Vogelman
265 F. Supp. 2d 335 (S.D. New York, 2003)
Scalia v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States
251 A.D.2d 315 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Hydell v. North Atlantic Life Insurance
246 A.D.2d 511 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Crossman v. Harding Industrial Tool
222 A.D.2d 1081 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
211 A.D.2d 589, 622 N.Y.S.2d 20, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 849, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/continental-insurance-v-helmsley-enterprises-inc-nyappdiv-1995.