Case Name: S. Albert Lowenstein, Appellant, v. Lulu Koch, Respondent
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1916-03-14
Citations: 217 N.Y. 689
Docket Number: 
Parties: S. Albert Lowenstein, Appellant, v. Lulu Koch, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 217
Pages: 689–690

Head Matter:
S. Albert Lowenstein, Appellant, v. Lulu Koch, Respondent.
Lowenstein v. Koch, 165 App. Div. 760, affirmed.
(Argued February 28, 1916;
decided March 14, 1916.)
Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered February 5,. 1915, which reversed an order of Special Term granting a motion by plaintiff for judgment in his favor upon the pleadings. The complaint sets forth in substance that plaintiff duly recovered a judgment against one Friedman in the sum of $1,523.63, which was duly entered and docketed in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on May 24, 1912; that thereafter execution in due form was issued to the sheriff of the proper county and was returned by him unsatisfied; that there is now due to plaintiff on said judgment the sum of $1,523.63, with interest; that supplementary proceedings were duly commenced against said Friedman, which are still pending" and have not been terminated; that about August 8, 1899, said Friedman insured his life in the New York Life Insurance Company in the sum of $5,000 by policy No. 973,090 in favor of his executors, administrar tors or assigns, or to such beneficiary as said Friedman might designate; that said policy contained a clause permitting said Friedman to change his beneficiary at will; that on or about April 9, 1900, said Friedman designated his sister, the defendant herein, as such beneficiary; that said Friedman died on February 15, 1914, without having ever assigned said policy and that on said date said policy was in full force and effect; that by reason of the foregoing plaintiff acquired and now has a lien on said policy and the moneys payable thereunder. The defendant demurred to the complaint on the ground “ that it appears on the face thereof that the same does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.”
The following question was certified: “Does the complaint herein state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action % ”
Paul Armitage and S. A. Lowenstein for appellant.
Alfred L. Rose and Norman P. Schloss for respondent.

Opinion:
Order affirmed, with costs, and question certified answered in the negative; no opinion.
Concur: Willard Bartlett, Oh. J., Hiscock, Collin, Cuddeback, Hogan, Seabury and Pound, JJ.