Eslick v. Blue Cross of Western New York, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Eslick v. Blue Cross of Western New York, Inc.

159 A.D.2d 940, 552 N.Y.S.2d 799, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3216

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

DecidedMarch 16, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 159 A.D.2d 940 (Eslick v. Blue Cross of Western New York, Inc.) 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

Eslick v. Blue Cross of Western New York, Inc., 159 A.D.2d 940, 552 N.Y.S.2d 799, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3216 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: We affirm for the reasons stated in the memorandum decision at Supreme Court (Flaherty, J.). We add that there is no merit to plaintiff’s contention that the amendment to the policy is ineffective because of noncompliance with the Insurance Law and Regulations of the Superin[941]*941tendent of Insurance. Insurance Law § 4304 (f) authorizes the amendment in question if approved by the Superintendent of Insurance upon a finding that the level of benefits thereunder would exceed, in the aggregate, the level of benefits theretofore provided. After a hearing, the Superintendent made such a finding and approved the amendment. Any challenge to the Superintendent’s finding may be made only by CPLR article 78 proceeding (Insurance Law § 4315 [b]; § 326 [a]; see also, Medical Malpractice Ins. Assn. v Community Gen. Hosp., 73 AD2d 867). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Flaherty, J. — summary judgment.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Boomer, Green, Pine and Balio, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: We affirm for the reasons stated in the memorandum decision at Supreme Court (Flaherty, J.). We add that there is no merit to plaintiff’s contention that the amendment to the policy is ineffective because of noncompliance with the Insurance Law and Regulations of the Superin[941]*941tendent of Insurance. Insurance Law § 4304 (f) authorizes the amendment in question if approved by the Superintendent of Insurance upon a finding that the level of benefits thereunder would exceed, in the aggregate, the level of benefits theretofore provided. After a hearing, the Superintendent made such a finding and approved the amendment. Any challenge to the Superintendent’s finding may be made only by CPLR article 78 proceeding (Insurance Law § 4315 [b]; § 326 [a]; see also, Medical Malpractice Ins. Assn. v Community Gen. Hosp., 73 AD2d 867). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Flaherty, J. — summary judgment.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Boomer, Green, Pine and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

159 A.D.2d 940, 552 N.Y.S.2d 799, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3216, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eslick-v-blue-cross-of-western-new-york-inc-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack