HOTA v. CAMAJ

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, the Supreme Court properly concluded that the complaint fails to state a cause of action to recover the insurance proceeds paid to the defendant. The gravamen of the complaint is that the decedent's assignment of his life insurance policy to the defendant was invalid because the defendant lacked an insurable interest in the decedent's life. However, Insurance Law § 3205(b)(1) permits any person of lawful age who has procured a contract of insurance upon his or her own life to immediately transfer or assign the contract, and does not require the assignee to have an insurable interest. In any event, since the plaintiffs alleged in their complaint that the policy was assigned as security for a loan from the defendant to the decedent, the Supreme Court properly concluded that the defendant was the decedent's creditor, which gave him an insurable interest in the decedent's life (see Cosentino v. William Penn Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 224 A.D.2d 777; New York Life Ins. Co. v. Baum, 700 F.2d 928).

S. MILLER, J.P., KRAUSMAN, GOLDSTEIN and RIVERA, JJ., concur.