Deutsch v. Upper Level, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Deutsch v. Upper Level, Inc.

232 A.D.2d 345, 648 N.Y.S.2d 601, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11207

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

DecidedOctober 31, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 232 A.D.2d 345 (Deutsch v. Upper Level, 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

Deutsch v. Upper Level, Inc., 232 A.D.2d 345, 648 N.Y.S.2d 601, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11207 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Schackman, J.), entered February 27, 1996, awarding plaintiff $150,000 plus interest, costs and disbursements, and bringing up for review an order of the same court and Justice entered January 23, 1996, which granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

An assignee’s right to the proceeds of a life insurance policy are superior to those of its beneficiary (69 NY Jur 2d, Insurance, § 1032; Considine v Considine, 255 App Div 876). Since the subject life insurance policy, originally obtained to allow defendant to purchase plaintiff’s decedent / shareholder’s stock at the time of his death, was validly assigned to him pursuant to a stock repurchase agreement, defendant had divested itself of both ownership and beneficiary interest in such policy and such entire interest vested in decedent (Matter of Bernstein, 198 AD2d 222, Iv denied 82 NY2d 664). There was no evidence of an affirmative act by which the decedent demonstrated an intent that defendant remain the beneficiary (cf., Hunnell v Hunnell, 45 AD2d 521, affd 37 NY2d 931), decedent’s inaction during his final illness in completing insurance company forms failing to support any such intent. Accordingly, summary judgment was properly granted. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin, Kupferman and Nardelli, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Schackman, J.), entered February 27, 1996, awarding plaintiff $150,000 plus interest, costs and disbursements, and bringing up for review an order of the same court and Justice entered January 23, 1996, which granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

An assignee’s right to the proceeds of a life insurance policy are superior to those of its beneficiary (69 NY Jur 2d, Insurance, § 1032; Considine v Considine, 255 App Div 876). Since the subject life insurance policy, originally obtained to allow defendant to purchase plaintiff’s decedent / shareholder’s stock at the time of his death, was validly assigned to him pursuant to a stock repurchase agreement, defendant had divested itself of both ownership and beneficiary interest in such policy and such entire interest vested in decedent (Matter of Bernstein, 198 AD2d 222, Iv denied 82 NY2d 664). There was no evidence of an affirmative act by which the decedent demonstrated an intent that defendant remain the beneficiary (cf., Hunnell v Hunnell, 45 AD2d 521, affd 37 NY2d 931), decedent’s inaction during his final illness in completing insurance company forms failing to support any such intent. Accordingly, summary judgment was properly granted. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin, Kupferman and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

232 A.D.2d 345, 648 N.Y.S.2d 601, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11207, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/deutsch-v-upper-level-inc-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack