Goldstein v. Lewis

New York Court of Appeals

Goldstein v. Lewis

450 N.E.2d 227, 59 N.Y.2d 706, 463 N.Y.S.2d 421, 1983 N.Y. LEXIS 3077

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 5, 1983

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 450 N.E.2d 227 (Goldstein v. Lewis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Goldstein v. Lewis, 450 N.E.2d 227, 59 N.Y.2d 706, 463 N.Y.S.2d 421, 1983 N.Y. LEXIS 3077 (N.Y. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [g]), judgment affirmed, with costs. Subdivision 10 of section 119 of the Insurance Law creates no presumption. Petitioner’s license should, therefore, be revoked only if the superintendent finds that petitioner was in fact involved in the fraudulent scheme carried out by Levy and Adler and the record contains substantial evidence to support that finding. Here, there is no such evidence. The Appellate Division, therefore, properly annulled the determination of the Superintendent of Insurance that petitioner was untrustworthy to act as an insurance agent. (Insurance Law, §§ 117, 119.)

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg, Meyer and Simons concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [g]), judgment affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [g]), judgment affirmed, with costs. Subdivision 10 of section 119 of the Insurance Law creates no presumption. Petitioner’s license should, therefore, be revoked only if the superintendent finds that petitioner was in fact involved in the fraudulent scheme carried out by Levy and Adler and the record contains substantial evidence to support that finding. Here, there is no such evidence. The Appellate Division, therefore, properly annulled the determination of the Superintendent of Insurance that petitioner was untrustworthy to act as an insurance agent. (Insurance Law, §§ 117, 119.)

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg, Meyer and Simons concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [g]), judgment affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

450 N.E.2d 227, 59 N.Y.2d 706, 463 N.Y.S.2d 421, 1983 N.Y. LEXIS 3077, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldstein-v-lewis-ny-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack