In First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n of Niagara Cnty. v. Nichols (33 AD2d 259, 306 N.Y.S.2d 542), Gold and Murphy, who were homebuilders, contracted in writing in the name of their corporation to sell a home to Robert and Terry Nichols. The homebuilders executed a mortgage on the property in favor of plaintiff Loan Association in January 1966, and the homebuilders obtained a fire insurance policy on the property from Mutual Insurance Company of Hartford which had a standard New York State mortgage clause in it covering plaintiff Loan Association.. The homebuilders permitted the Nichols to occupy the property in March 1966. On June 17, 1966 a fire occurred, causing nearly S12,000 in damage to the property. Plaintiff Loan Association filed proof of loss with Mutual, which refused to pay, and an action ensued. Mutual argued that because of a change in ownership and occupancy of the property without notice to it, the policy was null and void. The standard New York mortgage clause included in the Mutual policy provided in relevant part: " the mortgagee shall notify this Company of any change of ownership or occupancy or increase of hazard which shall come to the knowledge of said mortgagee and the mortgagee shall, on demand, pay the premium for such increased hazard for the term of the use thereof; otherwise this policy shall be null and void." The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, found: "Mutual remains liable to the plaintiff and [the homebuilders] unless an 'increase of hazard' resulted from Nichols being admitted into occupancy of the house." (First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n of Niagara Cnty. v. Nichols, supra, 262.) The house was presumably vacant before the Nichols began to occupy it, the appellate court wrote, and "in the normal case insurers deem a vacant house a greater risk than one which is occupied ." The appellate court held: " The burden is upon the insurer. Mutual, to allege and prove that an increase of hazard occurred by reason of Nichols' occupancy of the property: and a mere allegation of a change of occupancy is insufficient to raise an issue of increased hazard ." (First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n of Niagara Cnty. v. Nichols, supra, 262 .)