Yoshida v. Curiale

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Yoshida v. Curiale

227 A.D.2d 246, 642 N.Y.S.2d 299, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5196

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

DecidedMay 16, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 227 A.D.2d 246 (Yoshida v. Curiale) 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

Yoshida v. Curiale, 227 A.D.2d 246, 642 N.Y.S.2d 299, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5196 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of respondent Superintendent of Insurance dated November 30, 1994, which revoked petitioner’s insurance agent’s and broker’s licenses, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Karla Moskowitz, J.], entered April 14, 1995), dismissed, without costs.

Petitioner seeks review of only the penalty, conceding that he violated Insurance Law § 2102 by forming and operating an unauthorized insurance enterprise to sell health insurance, but arguing that his uncorrupt intention was to provide affordable health insurance to members of his community and that respondent’s finding as to the amount of profit he realized is not supported by substantial evidence. Regardless of the amount of profit realized, the Court is not in a position to second-guess respondent’s opinion that a dereliction such as this is one of turpitude typical of "unscrupulous entrepreneurs”, has a strong potential for adversely impacting on the public, and is best deterred by license revocation (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 234-235, 237, 240). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman and Williams, JJ.

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

Determination of respondent Superintendent of Insurance dated November 30, 1994, which revoked petitioner’s insurance agent’s and broker’s licenses, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Karla Moskowitz, J.], entered April 14, 1995), dismissed, without costs.

Petitioner seeks review of only the penalty, conceding that he violated Insurance Law § 2102 by forming and operating an unauthorized insurance enterprise to sell health insurance, but arguing that his uncorrupt intention was to provide affordable health insurance to members of his community and that respondent’s finding as to the amount of profit he realized is not supported by substantial evidence. Regardless of the amount of profit realized, the Court is not in a position to second-guess respondent’s opinion that a dereliction such as this is one of turpitude typical of "unscrupulous entrepreneurs”, has a strong potential for adversely impacting on the public, and is best deterred by license revocation (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 234-235, 237, 240). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

227 A.D.2d 246, 642 N.Y.S.2d 299, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5196, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yoshida-v-curiale-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack