Opinion
March 15, 1999
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kitzes, J.).
Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The modification of a contract results in the creation of a new contract between the parties which pro tanto supplants the affected provisions of the original agreement while leaving the balance of it intact ( see, Beacon Term. Corp. v. Chemprene, Inc., 75 A.D.2d 350; 22A N Y Jur 2d, Contracts, § 474; see also, Cortesi v. R D Constr. Corp., 73 N.Y.2d 836). Here, the Supreme Court correctly determined that an amendatory endorsement, which included explicit language making the limitation on coverage under "each occurrence" subject to the limitation on coverage per person, was part of the policy that was in effect at the time of the accident.
Moreover, the court properly found that the amendatory endorsement resulted in a clarification of coverage available under the policy rather than a reduction of coverage. This conclusion is plainly supported by the documentation that was supplied by the defendant to the State Insurance Department in connection with the filing of the amendatory endorsement. Accordingly, the provisions of Insurance Law § 3425 applicable to renewals do not control.
Santucci, J. P., Joy, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.