JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO. v. McMANUS

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the trial court's finding that the insured did not substantially comply with the requirements of her life insurance policies in order to effectuate a change of beneficiary ( see, Schoenholz v. New York Life Ins. Co., 234 N.Y. 24). The insured allegedly requested a change of beneficiary form, but she completed it incorrectly before returning it to the plaintiff carrier. Although the insured was advised that the initial form she returned was unacceptable and a new form was sent to her to complete, she failed to fill out and return the new form in the month before her death, even though completion of the new form was within her power to accomplish ( see, Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. Boni, 48 A.D.2d 621). Mere intent to charge a beneficiary is not enough ( see, Fink v. Fink, 171 N.Y. 616). Thus, the trial court properly concluded that a change of beneficiary had not been effected and that the surviving, named beneficiary was entitled to the proceeds.

Mangano, P.J., Joy, Altman and Luciano, JJ., concur.