New York Court of Appeals, 1928

Matter of Aioss v. Sardo

New York Court of Appeals · Decided November 20, 1928 · <italic>Per Curiam.</italic>

164 N.E. 48; 249 N.Y. 270; 1928 N.Y. LEXIS 802 (North Eastern Reporter)

Cases that cite this one

13 later published cases cite this decision.

Points v. Wills (N.M. 1939)
AMERICAN MILLENNIUM INS. CO. v. Berganza (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2006)
Bates v. Nelson (Iowa 1949)
United States v. Ocean Accident & Guarantee Corp. (District Court, S.D. New York 1948)
Claim of Urbano v. Bletsas Plumbing & Heating Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Claim of Urbano v. Bletsas Plumbing & Heating Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Claim of Cruz v. New Millennium Construction & Restoration Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
People v. Nogueros (N.Y. 1977)
Ætna Casualty & Surety Co. v. O'Connor (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1959)
Claim of Diaz v. Ulster Vegetable Growers Co-operative, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1953)
Matter of Di Donato v. Rosenberg (N.Y. 1931)
Claims of Di Donato v. Rosenberg (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1930)
Claim of Ardolino v. Ierna (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1929)

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

*272 Per Curiam.

There is here a distinct and independent contract with the employee. (Workmen’s Compensation Law [Cons. Laws, ch. 67], sections 10, 25, 50, 54.) So the policy itself provides. It adds “ the obligations and promises of the company as set forth in this paragraph shall not be affected by the failure of the employer to do or refrain from doing any act required by the policy,” and further that the company shall be bound by any award rendered against the employer. Under these circumstances, as between the insurance carrier and the employee the fact that a policy is issued upon untrue statements made by the employer is no defense. (Hastings v. Westchester Fire Ins. Co., 73 N. Y. 141.) To relieve the carrier of liability there must, be a cancellation as provided in section 54.

The order should be affirmed, with costs.

Cardozo, Ch. J., Found, Crane, Andrews, Lehman, Kellogg and O’Brien, JJ., concur.

Order affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.