Kuang v. Metlife

197 A.D.3d 1101

150 N.Y.S.3d 617 (Mem)

Honghui KUANG, plaintiff/counterclaim defendant-appellant,

v.METLIFE, defendant;

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, counterclaim plaintiff;

Hong Xing Yang, et al., additional counterclaim defendants-respondents.

2019-00667

Index No. 13073/13

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Submitted—June 17, 2021

September 1, 2021

Honghui Kuang, New York, NY, plaintiff/counterclaim defendant-appellant pro se.

Eric Dinnocenzo, New York, NY, for additional counterclaim defendants-respondents.

WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., COLLEEN D. DUFFY, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, LARA J. GENOVESI, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover the proceeds of a life insurance policy, the plaintiff/counterclaim defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Carmen R. Velasquez, J.), entered October 11, 2018. The order granted the motion of the additional counterclaim defendants to disburse the proceeds of the subject life insurance policy to them.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In 2004, Hong Guang Yang (hereinafter the decedent) obtained a life insurance policy from Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (hereinafter Metropolitan). The decedent designated his then-girlfriend, the plaintiff/counterclaim defendant (hereinafter the plaintiff), as a 50% beneficiary, and his siblings, the additional counterclaim defendants, Hong Xing Yang and Xiao Ming Yang (hereinafter together the Yangs), each as a 25% beneficiary. During the decedent's lifetime, Metropolitan received forms purportedly signed by the decedent, changing the beneficiary designation solely to the plaintiff and giving her ownership of the policy. Before he died, the decedent sent an affidavit to Metropolitan, attesting that he never authorized any modifications to his policy, and he also testified under oath that he did not authorize the changes to the policy and his intent was that the Yangs receive the entire proceeds of the policy.

After the decedent's death, the plaintiff commenced this action against Metropolitan to recover the proceeds of the policy. Metropolitan interposed counterclaims against the plaintiff and the Yangs, who were named as additional counterclaim defendants. The Yangs asserted "cross claims" against the plaintiff, alleging that the plaintiff had fraudulently changed the policy's beneficiary and owner to herself, and sought, inter alia, a judgment declaring that they are entitled to the full proceeds of the decedent's life insurance policy and that the plaintiff had no rights to the policy or proceeds, and directing payment of the full policy proceeds to them. The plaintiff failed to answer the cross claims, and the Supreme Court subsequently granted the Yangs’ motion for...