In re the People

199 Misc. 941, 106 N.Y.S.2d 953, 1951 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2267
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedJune 25, 1951
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 199 Misc. 941 (In re the People) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re the People, 199 Misc. 941, 106 N.Y.S.2d 953, 1951 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2267 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1951).

Opinion

Greenberg, J.

The Superintendent of Insurance of the State of New York on December 18, 1950, applied to this court for an order to show cause which would direct him to liquidate the business and dissolve the corporate existence of the International Workers Order, Inc., a corporation organized as a fraternal benefit society under the Insurance Law of the State of New York and transacting business under article XIV of that law. The petition upon which the application was based recited (1) that the International Workers Order (hereinafter referred to as I. W. 0.) had been found, after an examination, to be in such condition that its further transaction of business would be hazardous to its policyholders, to its creditors, and to the public (Insurance Law, § 511, par. [e]; § 513), and (2) that it has willfully violated its charter and various laws of the State (Insurance Law, § 511, par. [f]; §§ 513, 525).

More specifically, the petition alleged that the I. W. 0. was and is dominated by the Communist party and that it has been responsive, as demonstrated by its manifold activities, over a period of twenty years, to the revolutionary aims of the Communist party both abroad and in this country. These conclusions and others of the petition were predicated upon (a) an examination into the affairs of the corporation conducted by an examiner of the Insurance Department duly appointed in 1946 and again in 1948 by the Superintendent of Insurance pursuant to section 29 of the Insurance Law; (b) upon the report and recommendations of the examiner who found that the I. W. 0. was not simply a fraternal benefit society as it was required to be by its charter and its stated purposes but in fact an agency of the Communist party of the United States which disseminated its doctrines through the instrumentality of the various subordinate lodges of the I. W. 0. and through the agency of the governing body, its officers, and executive committee; that the activities of the I. W. 0. constituted a hazard as defined in the Insurance Law and also that they were in direct conflict with its charter, its stated purposes, and the laws of the State; (c) upon the hearing upon this report held before a deputy superintendent in which the respondent [945]*945participated during a period of four days and although afforded full opportunity did not introduce any evidence to controvert any material fact in the report, and (d) upon the decision rendered by the said deputy superintendent who sustained the conclusions of the report but modified it by eliminating therefrom certain material. The opinion and findings were approved by the Acting Superintendent of Insurance.

The petition and the exhibits attached thereto were carefully considered by the court. Since the matter contained in the report, under section 30 of the Insurance Law “ shall be admissible in evidence and shall be presumptive evidence of the facts stated there,” the court signed the order which required the I. W. 0. to show cause why it should not be dissolved and why it should not be restrained pending the ultimate determination of the issues from the transaction of new business and from the transaction of its current business except under the joint supervision of the superintendent. The restraining order, which is still in effect, was sought on two separate occasions to be vacated, at least to the extent of permitting the I. W. 0. to hold its convention. The court was strongly of the opinion that both in the interest of orderly procedure and to preserve the status quo the relief sought should not be granted. From this disposition the I. W. 0. was offered an opportunity to appeal to the Appellate Division but it declined to pursue that course.

The hearing on this petition in this court covered most of a period of eleven weeks. Forty-six witnesses were called, examined, and cross-examined, and the affidavits of 113 members of the I. W. 0. were received in evidence with full force and effect and as though the affiants had personally appeared and testified. Three hundred and fifty exhibits embracing books, magazines, articles, speeches and other pertinent material were introduced and received in evidence. In addition to the attorneys for the I. W. 0. the court permitted the attorneys for a policyholders’ committee to appear and to examine and cross-examine witnesses. The record of this hearing .fills approximately 5,200 pages.

At the end of the petitioner’s case, the respondent requested and received ten days’ time within which further to prepare a defense in the light of the petitioner’s evidence. At the conclusion of the hearing both sides were allowed six weeks’ time to prepare briefs and an additional ten days’ time for the submission of reply briefs. A group of some 200 persons said to be members of the I. W. 0. throughout the United States [946]*946representing various walks of life was permitted to submit a brief amicus curies. Thus all parties have been allowed great latitude in preparing their cases, presenting their evidence and arguing the questions raised by this proceeding.

In the light of contemporary political conditions, the existence of any element relating to communism or the Communist party tends to fill the atmosphere with emotionally charged feelings engendered by the controversy which now rages around this subject. It therefore places a special burden on the court to remove itself from the prejudice of the venue, to scorn the infection from the ill tempered and to abjure the passion and political currents of the general controversy and to confine itself to an objective analysis of the factual and legal issues in the case before it. The site is indeed a delicate one on which to balance but neutrality nevertheless must be observed if justice is to prevail. This does not mean that the court should be so removed to be unrealistic nor so close to be intimidated.

Recognizing the dangers inherent in this proceeding and the seriousness of the consequences to both parties, it was the threshold purpose of the court carried out to the very end of the hearing, to afford the widest margin of protection to the respondent by the most scrupulous observance of due process. Inroad on this resolution was perhaps unconsciously attempted at the very beginning of the hearing when the petitioner sought to impress upon the court the importance of the listing by the Attorney General of the United States of the I. W. O. as a subversive organization. This effort fell upon deaf ears. The court felt that it was unthinkable and shocking to its conscience to permit this ex parte judgment of the Attorney General to condemn an organization without giving it notice of the action contemplated and a hearing on the charges that gave birth to the listing by the Attorney General. The action of the Attorney General was not due process according to the law of the land and the court refused to consider this listing as having any bearing upon the determination of the important issues involved in this litigation.

Before the conclusion of the hearing the Supreme Court of the United States in International Workers Order v. McGrath (182 F. 2d 368, revd. sub nom. Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath, 341 U. S. 123) sustained this view and ruled that the respondent was entitled to a hearing before judgment was passed on it, a ruling which was based in this court’s judgment on elementary principles of law, on the provisions of the Constitution and the very concept of our democracy.

[947]

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

Related

Serio v. Ardra Insurance
304 A.D.2d 362 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Aetna Casualty. v. County of Nassau
221 A.D.2d 107 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
People v. Oliver Schools, Inc.
206 A.D.2d 143 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
People ex rel. Lewis v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America
98 Misc. 2d 856 (New York Supreme Court, 1978)
Wnek Vending & Amusements, Inc. v. City of Buffalo
96 Misc. 2d 983 (New York Supreme Court, 1978)
Health Insurance Ass'n of America v. Harnett
44 N.Y. 302 (New York Court of Appeals, 1978)
Levine v. Whalen
349 N.E.2d 820 (New York Court of Appeals, 1976)
Nassau Insurance v. Ebin
82 Misc. 2d 513 (New York Supreme Court, 1975)
Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc. v. Hostetter
45 Misc. 2d 956 (New York Supreme Court, 1965)
Martin v. State Liquor Authority
43 Misc. 2d 682 (New York Supreme Court, 1964)
Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance v. Thacher
15 A.D.2d 242 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1961)
Thatcher v. City Terrace Cultural Center
181 Cal. App. 2d 433 (California Court of Appeal, 1960)
Sylvander v. Taber
19 Misc. 2d 1005 (New York Supreme Court, 1959)
Castle Hill Beach Club, Inc. v. Arbury
208 Misc. 35 (New York Supreme Court, 1955)
Young v. National Association for Advancement of White People, Inc.
109 A.2d 29 (Court of Chancery of Delaware, 1954)
Young v. NATIONAL ASS'N FOR ADVANCE. OF WHITE PEOPLE
109 A.2d 29 (Court of Chancery of Delaware, 1954)
Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath
341 U.S. 123 (Supreme Court, 1951)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
199 Misc. 941, 106 N.Y.S.2d 953, 1951 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2267, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-people-nysupct-1951.