Legal Opinion

Neenan v. ITT Hartford

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

Decided December 31, 1998PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: We affirm for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court (Siracuse, J.). We add only that there is no merit to the contention of defendant Sergio Joseph Rizzo that, in the absence of a written assignment of the life insurance policy, plaintiffs wife retained the authority to change the policy’s beneficiary (see, General Obligations Law § 5-701 [a] [9]). An insurance policy is a chose in action, “and delivery to the assignee or donee with intent to vest title is essential to a valid gift * ** and * * * accomplishes a valid assignment…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Williams v. . GuileNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
  2. Katzman v. Ætna Life InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1955

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Kamens v. Utica Mutual InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2004

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API