American Automobile Plan, Inc. v. Corcoran

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

American Automobile Plan, Inc. v. Corcoran

166 A.D.2d 215, 560 N.Y.S.2d 435, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11687

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 9, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 166 A.D.2d 215 (American Automobile Plan, Inc. v. Corcoran) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

American Automobile Plan, Inc. v. Corcoran, 166 A.D.2d 215, 560 N.Y.S.2d 435, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11687 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, denominated an order, of Supreme Court, New York County (Phyllis Gangel-Jacob, J.), entered June 6, 1989, which denied the petition to mandamus the Superintendent of Insurance to issue a declaratory ruling forthwith, and granted respondent’s cross motion to dismiss the proceeding, and the order of the same court and Judge, entered on or about February 28, 1990, denying plaintiff’s motion to compel the codefendant Acting General Counsel of the Insurance Department to divulge an opinion rendered to the Superintendent, with award of costs on the motion both unanimously affirmed, with costs and disbursements.

The Superintendent of Insurance had every right to request additional data from petitioner/plaintiff before issuing any ruling on whether the latter’s proposed contract would constitute a contract of insurance under Insurance Law § 1101 (a) (1). The relevance of the additional data requested is a matter within the purview of the Department of Insurance, and the request herein does not in any way appear to have been unreasonable. Further, under State Administrative Procedure Act § 204 (1) (i), the issuance of a declaratory ruling is entirely within the discretion of the Superintendent of Insurance, without reference to any particular time frame, and petitioner/plaintiff was so informed.

The Acting General Counsel of the Department of Insurance was not required to divulge, during a deposition, any legal opinion he may have rendered to the Superintendent or his staff on the underlying question of whether the proposed contract constituted a contract of insurance. More than simply an expert witness, the Acting General Counsel was legal advisor to the Superintendent, and as such, this advice and opinion are protected under the attorney-client privilege. We find no abuse of discretion in the court’s award of costs on the motion to compel disclosure. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Ross and Ellerin, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Judgment, denominated an order, of Supreme Court, New York County (Phyllis Gangel-Jacob, J.), entered June 6, 1989, which denied the petition to mandamus the Superintendent of Insurance to issue a declaratory ruling forthwith, and granted respondent’s cross motion to dismiss the proceeding, and the order of the same court and Judge, entered on or about February 28, 1990, denying plaintiff’s motion to compel the codefendant Acting General Counsel of the Insurance Department to divulge an opinion rendered to the Superintendent, with award of costs on the motion both unanimously affirmed, with costs and disbursements.

The Superintendent of Insurance had every right to request additional data from petitioner/plaintiff before issuing any ruling on whether the latter’s proposed contract would constitute a contract of insurance under Insurance Law § 1101 (a) (1). The relevance of the additional data requested is a matter within the purview of the Department of Insurance, and the request herein does not in any way appear to have been unreasonable. Further, under State Administrative Procedure Act § 204 (1) (i), the issuance of a declaratory ruling is entirely within the discretion of the Superintendent of Insurance, without reference to any particular time frame, and petitioner/plaintiff was so informed.

The Acting General Counsel of the Department of Insurance was not required to divulge, during a deposition, any legal opinion he may have rendered to the Superintendent or his staff on the underlying question of whether the proposed contract constituted a contract of insurance. More than simply an expert witness, the Acting General Counsel was legal advisor to the Superintendent, and as such, this advice and opinion are protected under the attorney-client privilege. We find no abuse of discretion in the court’s award of costs on the motion to compel disclosure. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Ross and Ellerin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 A.D.2d 215, 560 N.Y.S.2d 435, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11687, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-automobile-plan-inc-v-corcoran-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack