Senate Syndicate, Inc. v. New York Insurance Exchange, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Senate Syndicate, Inc. v. New York Insurance Exchange, Inc.

167 A.D.2d 113, 561 N.Y.S.2d 202, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13033

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

DecidedNovember 1, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 167 A.D.2d 113 (Senate Syndicate, Inc. v. New York Insurance Exchange, Inc.) 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

Senate Syndicate, Inc. v. New York Insurance Exchange, Inc., 167 A.D.2d 113, 561 N.Y.S.2d 202, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13033 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), [114]*114entered on or about February 23, 1989, denying petitioner’s cross motion for partial summary judgment, and granting respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition in this CPLR article 78 proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner seeks a determination that it is entitled to interest upon moneys withdrawn yet unused by respondent NYIE Security Fund, Inc. from the deposit fund consisting of the aggregate $500,000 deposits which petitioner and other "Underwriting Members” of respondent New York Insurance Exchange are required to make. By definition, however, as set forth in article XIII, § 1 (b) of the constitution and bylaws which govern the Exchange and its participating members, the "Deposit Fund” consists of only those deposits remaining, "less disbursements and withdrawals therefrom.” Thus, while article XIII, §4 of the constitution and bylaws does give underwriting members such as petitioner an ownership interest in the "Deposit Fund”, that interest is limited to the extent "it may be * * * utilized * * * or called upon.” It is clear that once the deposit fund has been drawn upon in accordance with the provisions of the constitution and bylaws, the funds so withdrawn are no longer part of the deposit fund and petitioner can claim no entitlement to any part of the funds so withdrawn. Moreover, determinations as to the necessity for using the funds or the amount needed should not be disturbed where, as here, they have a rational basis. (See, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222.) Concur— Murphy, P. J., Carro, Rosenberger and Smith, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), [114]*114entered on or about February 23, 1989, denying petitioner’s cross motion for partial summary judgment, and granting respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition in this CPLR article 78 proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner seeks a determination that it is entitled to interest upon moneys withdrawn yet unused by respondent NYIE Security Fund, Inc. from the deposit fund consisting of the aggregate $500,000 deposits which petitioner and other "Underwriting Members” of respondent New York Insurance Exchange are required to make. By definition, however, as set forth in article XIII, § 1 (b) of the constitution and bylaws which govern the Exchange and its participating members, the "Deposit Fund” consists of only those deposits remaining, "less disbursements and withdrawals therefrom.” Thus, while article XIII, §4 of the constitution and bylaws does give underwriting members such as petitioner an ownership interest in the "Deposit Fund”, that interest is limited to the extent "it may be * * * utilized * * * or called upon.” It is clear that once the deposit fund has been drawn upon in accordance with the provisions of the constitution and bylaws, the funds so withdrawn are no longer part of the deposit fund and petitioner can claim no entitlement to any part of the funds so withdrawn. Moreover, determinations as to the necessity for using the funds or the amount needed should not be disturbed where, as here, they have a rational basis. (See, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222.) Concur— Murphy, P. J., Carro, Rosenberger and Smith, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

167 A.D.2d 113, 561 N.Y.S.2d 202, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13033, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/senate-syndicate-inc-v-new-york-insurance-exchange-inc-nyappdiv-1990.