Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: Application and/or Licenses of V.P. MANAGEMENT CORP., etc., et al., Petitioners, For a Judgment, etc., v. Neil D. LEVIN, etc., Respondent.
Determination of respondent Superintendent of Insurance, dated April 7, 1997, revoking petitioners' licenses upon a finding of, inter alia, untrustworthiness and/or incompetency, and determining that petitioner V.P. Management Corp. was liable for $176,019.05 in taxes, penalties and interest, 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 [Emily Goodman, J.], entered on or about November 17, 1997), dismissed, without costs.
Substantial evidence, including proof of petitioners' numerous violations of Insurance Law provisions and of their attempts to hamper respondent's investigation, and including the testimony of Joan B. Handy demonstrating a lack of knowledge of the relevant laws and regulations governing record-keeping requirements and other obligations of excess line brokers, supports the Superintendent's determination of petitioners' incompetency and/or untrustworthiness pursuant to Insurance Law § 2110[a] [4] (see, Pasternack v. Muhl, 248 A.D.2d 246, 670 N.Y.S.2d 187; Albert L. Kalastein & Assocs., Ltd. v. New York State Ins. Dept., 243 A.D.2d 408, 665 N.Y.S.2d 254). Respondent's reliance on a 1989 stipulation in further support of this determination was appropriate.
Since petitioners failed to maintain records as they were required to by the Insurance Law and failed to provide the required records during the audit at issue (see, Insurance Law, § 2118[c][1], [2] ), the Superintendent was permitted independently to calculate the amount of taxes due (see, Alphonse Hotel Corp. v. Sweeney, 251 A.D.2d 169, 674 N.Y.S.2d 351; Matter of Cook v. Tax Appeals Tribunal, 222 A.D.2d 962, 963, 635 N.Y.S.2d 355; Matter of Bitable on Broadway, Inc. v. Wetzler, 199 A.D.2d 633, 604 N.Y.S.2d 990). Petitioners failed to demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that respondent's audit method or tax assessment was erroneous (see, Cook, supra; Bitable on Broadway, Inc., supra ).
The violation based on respondents' issuance of “claims-made” liquor liability policies during the 1987-1993 period was supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of John Paterno, Inc. v. Curiale, 88 N.Y.2d 328, 332 n*, 645 N.Y.S.2d 424, 668 N.E.2d 395).
We have considered petitioners' related contentions and find them unavailing.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: January 21, 1999
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)