Sunbright Fashions, Inc. v. Greater New York Mut Ins Co .
| Decision Date | 21 January 1971 |
| Citation | 28 N.Y.2d 563,319 N.Y.S.2d 609 |
| Parties | , 268 N.E.2d 323 SUNBRIGHT FASHIONS, INC., Appellant, v. GREATER NEW YORK MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, 34 A.D.2d 235, 310 N.Y.S.2d 760.
Insured brought action against insurer on theft policy. The loss claim was for merchandise on premises of insured's contractor. The value fixed was $30,000, the limit of the policy. The president of insured testified that a number of skirts had been returned to insured because of defects and had been sent to contractor from whom they were allegedly stolen. The insured's president substantiated his testimony by submitting documents. Subsequently the president admitted that his testimony was false and that documents had been made up for purposes of claim.
The policy provided that it should be void if insured concealed or misrepresented in writing, or otherwise, any material facts or circumstances concerning the insurance or the subject thereof, or if the insured should make any attempt to defraud the insurer either before or after the loss.
On such facts the insurer moved for summary judgment. The insured admitted the falsity of testimony and that it was repeated in answers to set of interrogatories. The insured claimed that nevertheless the skirts were on the premises of the contractor and were stolen.
The Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County, Birdie Amsterdam, J., denied the motion for summary judgment, and the insurer appealed.
The Appellate Division, Steuer, J., reversed and granted summary judgment and held that concoction of elaborate falsehoods plus manufacture of spurious documents to support them precluded mistake and established intent to defraud the insurer, vitiating the entire policy, though fraud affected only a portion of the claim.
The insured appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Order affirmed, with costs.
All concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Eurospark Ind. v. Underwriters at Lloyds
... 567 F.Supp.2d 345 ... EUROSPARK INDUSTRIES, INC., Debtor-in-Possession, Plaintiff, ... The UNDERWRITERS AT ... United States District Court, E.D. New York ... July 2, 2008 ... Page 346 ... held are not grounds for vitiating a policy." Sunbright Fashions, Inc. v. Greater New York Mut. Ins. Co., 34 ... ...
-
S.E.C. v. Credit Bancorp, Ltd.
...See, Sunbright Fashions, Inc. v. Greater N.Y. Ins. Co., 34 A.D.2d 235, 310 N.Y.S.2d 760 (1st Dep't 1970), aff'd, 28 N.Y.2d 563, 319 N.Y.S.2d 609, 268 N.E.2d 323 (1971) (where conduct precluded mistake, intent sufficient to void the policy was established); Carlin v. Crum & Forster Ins. Co.,......
-
Kittner v. Eastern Mut. Ins. Co.
...a policy" ( Sunbright Fashions v. Greater N.Y. Mut. Ins. Co., 34 A.D.2d 235, 237, 310 N.Y.S.2d 760 [1970], affd. 28 N.Y.2d 563, 319 N.Y.S.2d 609, 268 N.E.2d 323 [1971]; see Deitsch Textiles v. New York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assn., 62 N.Y.2d 999, 1001, 479 N.Y.S.2d 487, 468 N.E.2d 669 [198......
-
Walker v. Tighe
...824 N.Y.S.2d 171, quoting Sunbright Fashions v. Greater N.Y. Mut. Ins. Co., 34 A.D.2d 235, 237, 310 N.Y.S.2d 760, affd. 28 N.Y.2d 563, 319 N.Y.S.2d 609, 268 N.E.2d 323 ). Moreover, the issue of materiality is generally a question of fact for the jury, and “[c]onclusory statements by insuran......