Greater New York Mutual Insurance v. Axentiou

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Greater New York Mutual Insurance v. Axentiou

193 A.D.2d 474, 597 N.Y.S.2d 401, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4997

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

DecidedMay 18, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 193 A.D.2d 474 (Greater New York Mutual Insurance v. Axentiou) 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

Greater New York Mutual Insurance v. Axentiou, 193 A.D.2d 474, 597 N.Y.S.2d 401, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4997 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered on or about September 24, 1992, which denied defendant-appellant’s motion to dismiss the complaint based on documentary evidence, or, alternatively, for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the IAS Court that Insurance Law § 2121 (a), "designed to relieve the insured from all risks stemming from a broker’s possible dishonesty or insolvency” (Bohlinger v Zanger, 306 NY 228, 237 [Fuld, J., dissenting]), does not afford the same protection to a broker, such as appellant, who, pursuant to an arrangement with a cobroker, forwards a premium payment to the cobroker who then fails to remit the premium to the insurer. And, although appellant’s documentary evidence does show that it paid the premium to codefendant-cobroker, nevertheless, appellant can be held liable for codefendant’s theft of premium if, as plaintiff claims, appellant and codefendants had entered into a joint venture to procure the policy in question. The existence of such a joint venture is, as the IAS Court held, an issue of fact more appropriately to be considered after joinder of issue. Concur— Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Ross and Asch, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered on or about September 24, 1992, which denied defendant-appellant’s motion to dismiss the complaint based on documentary evidence, or, alternatively, for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the IAS Court that Insurance Law § 2121 (a), "designed to relieve the insured from all risks stemming from a broker’s possible dishonesty or insolvency” (Bohlinger v Zanger, 306 NY 228, 237 [Fuld, J., dissenting]), does not afford the same protection to a broker, such as appellant, who, pursuant to an arrangement with a cobroker, forwards a premium payment to the cobroker who then fails to remit the premium to the insurer. And, although appellant’s documentary evidence does show that it paid the premium to codefendant-cobroker, nevertheless, appellant can be held liable for codefendant’s theft of premium if, as plaintiff claims, appellant and codefendants had entered into a joint venture to procure the policy in question. The existence of such a joint venture is, as the IAS Court held, an issue of fact more appropriately to be considered after joinder of issue. Concur— Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Ross and Asch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

193 A.D.2d 474, 597 N.Y.S.2d 401, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4997, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/greater-new-york-mutual-insurance-v-axentiou-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack