Rifkin v. Manhattan Life Insurance
This text of 248 A.D. 732 (Rifkin v. Manhattan Life Insurance) 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.
Opinion
In an action to recover upon a life insurance policy, order denying plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and granting defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment, and judgment entered thereon, unanimously affirmed, without costs. It is not disputed that the insured well knew at the time he received the amount of the loan that the annual premium due November 28, 1930, had been deducted. He was not, therefore, misled, (del Rio v. Prudential Ins. Co., 269 N. Y. 135.) He further well knew, and was advised [733]*733by defendant, that unless the annual premium due November 28,1931, was paid, the policy would lapse and become forfeited. The premium was not paid and defendant is, therefore, entitled to summary judgment. (Starker v. Prudential Insurance Company of America, 246 App. Div. 567.) Present — Lazansky, P. J., Young, Hagarty, Johnston and Adel, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
248 A.D. 732, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rifkin-v-manhattan-life-insurance-nyappdiv-1936.