Opinion
2003-01280.
Decided February 17, 2004.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review two determinations of the respondent New York State Superintendent of Insurance, both dated March 20, 2002, which revoked the petitioners' licenses to transact insurance business pursuant to Insurance Law § 2110, and imposed civil penalties upon them pursuant to Insurance Law § 403, respectively.
Bruce P. Vetri, Lindenhurst, N.Y., for petitioners.
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney-General, New York, N.Y. (Michelle Aronowitz, Daniel J. Chepaitis, and Robert Easton of counsel), for respondents.
Before: A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J., GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, DANIEL F. UCIANO and BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.
DECISION JUDGMENT
ADJUDGED that the determinations are confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.
The corporate petitioners are closely-held corporations. The petitioner Robert F. Kent is their owner, president, and director. The petitioners operated three offices and Kent employed his brother-in-law to manage one of those offices. The instant proceeding involves a series of applications for worker's compensation insurance filed from each of the three offices which contained material falsities relating to the occupation or business of the insured.
In the instant proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, the standard of review is whether the determinations are supported by substantial evidence ( see Matter of Anthony Grace Sons v. New York State Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 266 A.D.2d 456; Matter of Williams v. Perales, 156 A.D.2d 697; CPLR 7803). It is well settled that hearsay is admissible at an administrative hearing and "hearsay alone may constitute substantial evidence" ( Matter of Bullock v. State of New York Dept. of Social Servs., 248 A.D.2d 380, 382; see Matter of Gray v. Adduci, 73 N.Y.2d 741; Matter of Nieto v. DeBuono, 231 A.D.2d 573). There is substantial evidence in the record that Kent and his closely held corporations knowingly and with intent to deceive prepared the applications in issue with materially false information in order to secure lower premiums.
The petitioners' remaining contentions either are unpreserved for judicial review or without merit.
PRUDENTI, P.J., GOLDSTEIN, LUCIANO and COZIER, JJ., concur.