Graphic Arts Mutual Insurance v. Schenck

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Graphic Arts Mutual Insurance v. Schenck

42 A.D.2d 522, 344 N.Y.S.2d 674, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3809

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

DecidedJune 7, 1973

StatusPublished

This text of 42 A.D.2d 522 (Graphic Arts Mutual Insurance v. Schenck) 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

Graphic Arts Mutual Insurance v. Schenck, 42 A.D.2d 522, 344 N.Y.S.2d 674, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3809 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of respondent Superintendent of Insurance, dated May 9, 1972, finding petitioner to Lave violated section 27 of the Insurance Law and directing payment of a fine of $500, unanimously modified, in the exercise of discretion, to reduce the' fine to $100, and otherwise confirmed, without costs and without disbursements. The record justifies the finding of petitioner’s noncompliance with the new procedures required by the statute but does not persuade us that such failure to comply timely and precisely occurred by reason of bad faith. It appears rather that petitioner dragged its feet in compliance, protesting overmuch and overlong the difficulties attendant upon strict adherence to the new requirements that certain information be . furnished. The fact that other insurance companies were let off with no more than a warning is not an indication of an arbitrary exercise of discretion. However, in the circumstances found here, we are of opinion that no more than a token fine should have been levied against petitioner. Concur — Stevens, P. J., Markewich, Nunez, Kupferman and Tilzer, JJ.

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

Determination of respondent Superintendent of Insurance, dated May 9, 1972, finding petitioner to Lave violated section 27 of the Insurance Law and directing payment of a fine of $500, unanimously modified, in the exercise of discretion, to reduce the' fine to $100, and otherwise confirmed, without costs and without disbursements. The record justifies the finding of petitioner’s noncompliance with the new procedures required by the statute but does not persuade us that such failure to comply timely and precisely occurred by reason of bad faith. It appears rather that petitioner dragged its feet in compliance, protesting overmuch and overlong the difficulties attendant upon strict adherence to the new requirements that certain information be . furnished. The fact that other insurance companies were let off with no more than a warning is not an indication of an arbitrary exercise of discretion. However, in the circumstances found here, we are of opinion that no more than a token fine should have been levied against petitioner. Concur — Stevens, P. J., Markewich, Nunez, Kupferman and Tilzer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 A.D.2d 522, 344 N.Y.S.2d 674, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3809, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/graphic-arts-mutual-insurance-v-schenck-nyappdiv-1973.