From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Friedland v. Curiale

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 13, 1993
192 A.D.2d 387 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

April 13, 1993

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County [Martin Stecher, J.].


The determination was supported by substantial evidence and the penalty imposed on petitioners was not excessive. Petitioners were found guilty of a series of serious violations of the Insurance Law. Among other things, the evidence showed that they conducted business under a fictitious entity, solicited business on behalf of unlicensed insurers, commingled funds and failed to exercise their fiduciary responsibilities to policyholders. Thus, the determination was warranted, and the penalty does not shock our sense of fairness. (Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 N.Y.2d 222.)

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Milonas, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.


Summaries of

Friedland v. Curiale

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 13, 1993
192 A.D.2d 387 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

Friedland v. Curiale

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT D. FRIEDLAND et al., Petitioners, v. SALVATORE R. CURIALE, as…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Apr 13, 1993

Citations

192 A.D.2d 387 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
596 N.Y.S.2d 41

Citing Cases

Matter of Dona v. Levin

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annul the determination. Our review reveals…