Why Trust This Analysis
This article is part of our ongoing declaratory judgment action coverage, with 79 published articles analyzing declaratory judgment action issues across New York State. Attorney Jason Tenenbaum brings 24+ years of hands-on experience to this analysis, drawing from his work on more than 1,000 appeals, over 100,000 no-fault cases, and recovery of over $100 million for clients throughout Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, and the Bronx. For personalized legal advice about how these principles apply to your specific situation, contact our Long Island office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation.
When insurance carriers seek to rescind policies based on material misrepresentation, meticulous attention to detail in court filings is absolutely critical. The case Infinity Ins. Co. v Nazaire serves as a stark reminder that courts notice when attorneys take shortcuts with their documentation—and they’re not impressed.
The Importance of Proper Documentation in Insurance Rescission Cases
Insurance rescission cases, particularly those involving denial of claims based on garaging misrepresentations, require careful presentation of evidence. Courts expect thorough, accurate documentation that supports the carrier’s position. When that documentation appears hastily assembled or contains obvious errors, it undermines the entire case.
This judicial criticism echoes concerns we’ve seen in other contexts where sloppy papers can derail even strong cases. The difference between a successful rescission action and a dismissed case often comes down to the quality of the supporting documentation.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Free Consultation · No Fee Unless We Win
Does this apply to your situation?
Every case is different. Get a free, confidential case review from an experienced attorney who can tell you exactly where you stand.
Infinity Ins. Co. v Nazaire, 2016 NY Slip Op 31454(U)(Sup. Ct. Kings Co. 2016)
This is a PA rescission case based upon a garaging issue. The Court caught on to something interesting. First, the EUO of the Defendant was not annexed to the moving papers. Second, the Court found the investigator affidavit to be hearsay.
Third, the footnote said:
“The affidavit of the plaintiffs litigation specialist appears to be, in the antiquated words of one court, a “mere mechanical job of paste pot and shears” (TC. Theatre Corp. v Warner Bros. Pictures, 113 F Supp 265, 271 , rearg denied 125 F Supp 233 ). The boilerplate text of her affidavit is formatted in regular size font, while the variables are highlighted in bold size font to make it easier for her to make changes depending on the facts of a particular claim. Her affidavit here does not have all of the correct variables. Notably, para 23 of her affidavit refers to one Nandslie Jean Louis as the policyholder, rather than Jude.”
Interesting read. My advice to Plaintiff insurance carrier counsel: slow down and proof read. Being a speed demon does not make friends in the judiciary…
Key Takeaway
This case demonstrates that courts scrutinize insurance carrier documentation closely and will call out obvious template errors. Similar to situations where critical documents are missing from filings, careless preparation can sink an otherwise viable case. Quality control in document preparation is essential for successful insurance litigation.
Related Articles
Legal Context
Why This Matters for Your Case
New York law is among the most complex and nuanced in the country, with distinct procedural rules, substantive doctrines, and court systems that differ significantly from other jurisdictions. The Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) governs every stage of civil litigation, from service of process through trial and appeal. The Appellate Division, Appellate Term, and Court of Appeals create a rich and ever-evolving body of case law that practitioners must follow.
Attorney Jason Tenenbaum has practiced across these areas for over 24 years, writing more than 1,000 appellate briefs and publishing over 2,353 legal articles that attorneys and clients rely on for guidance. The analysis in this article reflects real courtroom experience — from motion practice in Civil Court and Supreme Court to oral arguments before the Appellate Division — and a deep understanding of how New York courts actually apply the law in practice.
About This Topic
Declaratory Judgment Actions in Insurance Law
Declaratory judgment actions under CPLR 3001 allow insurers and claimants to obtain a judicial determination of their rights under an insurance policy before or during the course of litigation. In the no-fault context, carriers frequently seek declaratory judgments on coverage, fraud, and policy procurement issues. These articles analyze the procedural requirements, strategic considerations, and substantive standards governing declaratory judgment practice in New York insurance disputes.
79 published articles in Declaratory Judgment Action
Keep Reading
More Declaratory Judgment Action Analysis
Material Misrepresentation defense
Alignment Chiropractic v Travelers applied Fatmir to vehicle ownership and use. The insurer failed to prove it would have refused the policy.
Sep 25, 2020
Post Jamaica Wellness Appellate Division victories
Jamaica Wellness Appellate Division victories: Fourth Department clarifies successive summary judgment motions in no-fault insurance cases following prior appeal decisions.
Feb 8, 2020
DJ not collateral estoppel
Court rules that medical provider wasn't bound by prior declaratory judgment action where they weren't named, served, or in privity with the parties involved.
Apr 14, 2018
Unpleaded defense can serve as basis to move for summary judgmemnt
NY court rules unpleaded defenses can support summary judgment motions without prejudice or surprise to opposing party in insurance litigation.
Jul 18, 2016
First Department upholds EUO DJ victory
First Department upholds declaratory judgment victory for insurer after assignors failed to appear at scheduled examinations under oath in no-fault case.
Dec 23, 2014
Material Misrepresentation in Insurance Procurement: New York Law Protects Policyholders
Learn how New York law protects policyholders from untimely insurance denials based on alleged misrepresentation.
Jan 17, 2011Was this article helpful?
Disclaimer: This article is published by the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is formed by reading this content. The legal principles discussed may not apply to your specific situation, and the law may have changed since this article was last updated.
New York law varies by jurisdiction — court decisions in one Appellate Division department may not be followed in another, and local court rules in Nassau County Supreme Court differ from those in Suffolk County Supreme Court, Kings County Civil Court, or Queens County Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, Second Department (which covers Long Island, Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island) and the Appellate Term (which hears appeals from lower courts) each have distinct procedural requirements and precedents that affect litigation strategy.
If you need legal help with a declaratory judgment action matter, contact our office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation. We serve clients throughout Long Island (Huntington, Babylon, Islip, Brookhaven, Smithtown, Riverhead, Southampton, East Hampton), Nassau County (Hempstead, Garden City, Mineola, Great Neck, Manhasset, Freeport, Long Beach, Rockville Centre, Valley Stream, Westbury, Hicksville, Massapequa), Suffolk County (Hauppauge, Deer Park, Bay Shore, Central Islip, Patchogue, Brentwood), Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, Staten Island, and Westchester County. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
