Continental Insurance v. Helmsley Enterprises, Inc.
Cases that cite this one
14 later published cases cite this decision.
- Associated Indus. Ins. Co., Inc. v. Farahnik (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
- Rivera v. Sovereign Bank (District Court, E.D. New York 2013)
- United States Life Insurance v. Blumenfeld (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Guideone Specialty Mutual Insurance v. Congregation Adas Yereim (District Court, E.D. New York 2009)
- Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. Dukoff (District Court, E.D. New York 2009)
- Continental Insurance Co. v. Kingston (Utah Ct. App. 2005)
- Chicago Ins. Co. v. Kreitzer & Vogelman (District Court, S.D. New York 2003)
- Alexi Home Design, Inc. v. Union Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
- Allstate Insurance Company v. Weiner (District Court, E.D. New York 2023)
- Precision Auto Accessories, Inc. v. Utica First Insurance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- Briggs v. Allstate Insurance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
- Hydell v. North Atlantic Life Insurance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
- Scalia v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
- Crossman v. Harding Industrial Tool (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beverly Cohen, J.), entered on or about November 3, 1993, which, inter alia, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff’s cross-motion for leave to serve an amended complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
The IAS Court properly determined that plaintiff waived its right to seek rescission of the contract of insurance when it knowingly accepted premium payments for several months following discovery of the alleged misrepresentations upon which it claimed to have relied when it issued the policies. Plaintiff’s claimed attempt to both accept premiums and reserve its right to rescind is unenforceable for lack of mutuality and timeliness (see, McNaught v Equitable Life Assur. Socy., 136 App Div 774). Where an insurer accepts premiums after learning of an event allowing for cancellation of the policy, the insurer has waived the right to cancel or rescind (see, Zeldman v Mutual Life Ins. Co., 269 App Div 53).
Further, the motions here for summary judgment were the first made by the moving parties and therefore are not subject to any bar precluding successive motions for summary judgment (compare, Echeverri v Flushing Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 123 AD2d 818). Finally, leave to serve a third amended complaint four years after the start of litigation, and after all disclosure had been completed, to assert, for the very first time, causes of action for damages was properly denied by the IAS Court in view of the obvious lack of merit of the causes. Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin and Williams, JJ.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.