Lefrak v. Lefrak

47 A.D.2d 912, 366 N.Y.S.2d 672, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9344
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 14, 1975
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 47 A.D.2d 912 (Lefrak v. Lefrak) 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
Lefrak v. Lefrak, 47 A.D.2d 912, 366 N.Y.S.2d 672, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9344 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Opinion

In an action inter alia to declare the rights of plaintiffs to the proceeds of certain policies of insurance on the life of Harris B. Lefrak, deceased, the appeal is from (1) [913]*913stated portions of an order-judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated September 5, 1974, which, inter alla, granted partial summary judgment to plaintiffs and (2) an order of the same court, entered October 31, 1974, which denied appellant’s motion for renewal and rehearing of the part of that order which granted plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment. Appeal from the order entered October 31, 1974 dismissed, without costs. An order denying reargument is not appealable (Mazur v Mazur, 38 AD2d 951). Order dated September 5, 1974 modified by (1) deleting from the twentieth decretal paragraph thereof the word "granted” and substituting therefor the word "denied” and (2) deleting therefrom the twenty-first and twenty-second decretal paragraphs thereof. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs. Under Federal law a veteran’s right to change the beneficiary of a National Service life insurance policy is unrestricted (US Code, tit 38, § 717, subd [a]). The proceeds of such a policy are not subject to diversion from the named beneficiary either before or after receipt by the beneficiary (US Code, tit 38, § 3101, subd [a]). This court cannot impress a trust upon the proceeds of such a policy, for to do so would result in an evasion of the intent of Congress (Wissner v Wissner, 338 US 655; see, also, Hoffman v United States, 391 F2d 195; Kimball v United States, 197 F Supp 124, affd 304 F2d 864). Martuscello, Acting P. J., Christ, Munder and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Smith v. Prudential Life Insurance of America
149 A.D.2d 681 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
Aronoff v. Albanese
74 A.D.2d 810 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1980)
In re the Estate of Hilton
88 Misc. 2d 760 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1976)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
47 A.D.2d 912, 366 N.Y.S.2d 672, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9344, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lefrak-v-lefrak-nyappdiv-1975.