Blase v. Van Schaick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Blase v. Van Schaick

246 A.D. 887

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

DecidedJanuary 15, 1936

StatusPublished

This text of 246 A.D. 887 (Blase v. Van Schaick) 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

Blase v. Van Schaick, 246 A.D. 887 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Review by certiorari of determination of New York State Superintendent of Insurance suspending petitioner’s broker’s license and refusing his application for renewal and refusing to grant certain agency applications. The petitioner was charged with having failed to transmit money timely to certain insurance companies, to have become deeply indebted for money borrowed with no acceptable explanation therefor, with having failed to list assets in a bankruptcy proceeding, with having violated his agreement for the sale of Ms insurance business, good will and expirations, with having loaned his credit by way of cheeks and then having stopped payment on the checks and keeping the money when repaid to him. Determination confirmed, with fifty dollars costs. Hill, P. J., MeHamee and Bliss, JJ., concur; Crapser and Heffernan, JJ., dissent and vote to annul the determination on the ground that the order made by the Superintendent of Insurance was capricious and arbitrary.

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

Review by certiorari of determination of New York State Superintendent of Insurance suspending petitioner’s broker’s license and refusing his application for renewal and refusing to grant certain agency applications. The petitioner was charged with having failed to transmit money timely to certain insurance companies, to have become deeply indebted for money borrowed with no acceptable explanation therefor, with having failed to list assets in a bankruptcy proceeding, with having violated his agreement for the sale of Ms insurance business, good will and expirations, with having loaned his credit by way of cheeks and then having stopped payment on the checks and keeping the money when repaid to him. Determination confirmed, with fifty dollars costs. Hill, P. J., MeHamee and Bliss, JJ., concur; Crapser and Heffernan, JJ., dissent and vote to annul the determination on the ground that the order made by the Superintendent of Insurance was capricious and arbitrary.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

246 A.D. 887, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blase-v-van-schaick-nyappdiv-1936.