You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Excelsior Merchandise, Ltd. v. Bell

Citations: 221 A.D.2d 497; 634 N.Y.S.2d 399; 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11980

Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; November 19, 1995; New York; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In an action to determine the rights to the proceeds of a life insurance policy, the plaintiff appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, which denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted the defendant Roslyn Bell's cross motion for summary judgment. The court declared Bell as the legal and equitable owner of the policy proceeds. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, stating that the plaintiff did not demonstrate that paying the proceeds to Bell would result in unjust enrichment. The court found that the circumstances warranted granting Bell's summary judgment under CPLR 3212(b). The decision was concurred by Judges Sullivan, Thompson, Copertino, Krausman, and Florio.

Legal Issues Addressed

Determination of Legal and Equitable Ownership of Insurance Proceeds

Application: The court declared Roslyn Bell as the legal and equitable owner of the life insurance policy proceeds, supporting her entitlement to the funds over the plaintiff.

Reasoning: The court declared Bell as the legal and equitable owner of the policy proceeds.

Summary Judgment under CPLR 3212(b)

Application: The court upheld the granting of summary judgment in favor of the defendant, Roslyn Bell, as the plaintiff failed to demonstrate any material issue of fact regarding unjust enrichment.

Reasoning: The court found that the circumstances warranted granting Bell's summary judgment under CPLR 3212(b).

Unjust Enrichment

Application: The court determined that the plaintiff did not show that the payment of the life insurance policy proceeds to Bell would result in unjust enrichment, thereby affirming the lower court's decision in favor of Bell.

Reasoning: The appellate court affirmed the judgment, stating that the plaintiff did not demonstrate that paying the proceeds to Bell would result in unjust enrichment.