Kelly & Romano, Inc. v. Van Schaick

New York Supreme Court

Kelly & Romano, Inc. v. Van Schaick

156 Misc. 521, 282 N.Y.S. 337, 1935 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1429

DecidedAugust 28, 1935

StatusPublished

This text of 156 Misc. 521 (Kelly & Romano, Inc. v. Van Schaick) 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

Kelly & Romano, Inc. v. Van Schaick, 156 Misc. 521, 282 N.Y.S. 337, 1935 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1429 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

McLaughlin (Alonzo G.), J.

Motion to dismiss granted. The Superintendent of Insurance has suspended the certificate or license of the petitioner to act as public adjuster of fire losses for a period of thirty days, pursuant to section 138-a, subdivision 10, of the Insurance Law. Petitioner seeks to review the action of the Superintendent by order of certiorari, under subdivision 12 of section 138-a. That subdivision, however, limits review by certiorari to the action of the Superintendent “ in granting or refusing to grant or renew a certificate of authority * * *, or in revoking or refusing to revoke such a certificate.” It does not include suspension. Originally the Superintendent had no power to suspend. Subdivision 10 was amended by chapter 288 of the Laws of 1932, in effect March 21, 1932, to include suspension. Subdivision 12 was likewise enacted at the same time. The Legislature apparently did not intend that the suspension of a certificate should be reviewed by certiorari.

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

McLaughlin (Alonzo G.), J.

Motion to dismiss granted. The Superintendent of Insurance has suspended the certificate or license of the petitioner to act as public adjuster of fire losses for a period of thirty days, pursuant to section 138-a, subdivision 10, of the Insurance Law. Petitioner seeks to review the action of the Superintendent by order of certiorari, under subdivision 12 of section 138-a. That subdivision, however, limits review by certiorari to the action of the Superintendent “ in granting or refusing to grant or renew a certificate of authority * * *, or in revoking or refusing to revoke such a certificate.” It does not include suspension. Originally the Superintendent had no power to suspend. Subdivision 10 was amended by chapter 288 of the Laws of 1932, in effect March 21, 1932, to include suspension. Subdivision 12 was likewise enacted at the same time. The Legislature apparently did not intend that the suspension of a certificate should be reviewed by certiorari.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

156 Misc. 521, 282 N.Y.S. 337, 1935 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1429, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kelly-romano-inc-v-van-schaick-nysupct-1935.