Golden Eagle Mutual Life Insurance v. Stewart

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Golden Eagle Mutual Life Insurance v. Stewart

38 A.D.2d 824, 329 N.Y.S.2d 643, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5264

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

DecidedFebruary 28, 1972

StatusPublished

This text of 38 A.D.2d 824 (Golden Eagle Mutual Life Insurance v. Stewart) 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

Golden Eagle Mutual Life Insurance v. Stewart, 38 A.D.2d 824, 329 N.Y.S.2d 643, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5264 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

In this article 78 proceeding, the determination of the Superintendent of Insurance dated February 6, 1970 overruling the petitioner’s objections, is unanimously confirmed, without costs and without disbursements. With respect to that provision in the collective bargaining agreement providing for an “irrevocable beneficial interest” for petitioner’s debit agents, while the Superintendent’s expert knowledge of the insurance industry and the substantial evidence test (Matter of Danzo Estate v. New York State Liq. Auth., 27 N Y 2d 469) mandated the result here, it would seem that a change in the “ label ” applied to that situation and in the delineation of the arrangement, could lead to a contrary conclusion. Concur — Stevens, P. J., McGivern, Markewich, Kupferman and Tilzer, JJ.

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

In this article 78 proceeding, the determination of the Superintendent of Insurance dated February 6, 1970 overruling the petitioner’s objections, is unanimously confirmed, without costs and without disbursements. With respect to that provision in the collective bargaining agreement providing for an “irrevocable beneficial interest” for petitioner’s debit agents, while the Superintendent’s expert knowledge of the insurance industry and the substantial evidence test (Matter of Danzo Estate v. New York State Liq. Auth., 27 N Y 2d 469) mandated the result here, it would seem that a change in the “ label ” applied to that situation and in the delineation of the arrangement, could lead to a contrary conclusion. Concur — Stevens, P. J., McGivern, Markewich, Kupferman and Tilzer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A.D.2d 824, 329 N.Y.S.2d 643, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5264, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/golden-eagle-mutual-life-insurance-v-stewart-nyappdiv-1972.