Opinion
October 5, 1967
Order and judgment denying petitioner-appellant's demand to annul respondent's refusal to direct that petitioner be furnished with further details, unanimously reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements to the appellant, and the application granted to the extent hereinafter indicated. On July 18, 1966, petitioner received from the Insurance Department of the State of New York a copy of a report of the examination of petitioner's United States branch. Petitioner duly demanded a hearing thereon pursuant to section 30 Ins. of the Insurance Law with reference to the reserve for Federal income taxes therein required. Petitioner's said demand also sought details as to the examiner's calculation or estimate of said reserve. At the hearing, the demand for said details was renewed before and denied by the respondent hearing officer. Section 30 Ins. of the Insurance Law provides, in part: "Before adopting any such report and filing it for public inspection, the superintendent shall notify the insurer * * * of its contents and shall afford such insurer * * * a reasonable opportunity to obtain further details and to demand a hearing with reference to the facts, conclusions or recommendations therein contained." Implicit in section 30 is the requirement that the report set out the facts and conclusions. (See Matter of Barry v. O'Connell, 303 N.Y. 46, 51; Matter of Hecht v. Monaghan, 307 N.Y. 461, 470.) The petition is granted to the extent of directing that petitioner be furnished with the factual basis for and the computation of the reserve for Federal income taxes.
Concur — Stevens, J.P., Rabin, McNally and Witmer, JJ.