Opinion
January 30, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County [Elliott Wilk, J.].
Substantial evidence supports the Superintendent's determination of petitioners' "incompetency or untrustworthiness" (Insurance Law § 2110 [a] [4]), based on their violations of several provisions of the Insurance Law in regard to acting without a license, calling attention to and acting for unauthorized insurers and misrepresenting the terms of insurance policies. Petitioners' claim that there is no support in the record for the determination that petitioner Michael Glick was actively involved in the solicitation of insurance business is without merit. Michael Glick himself testified that he "operated" the entity that secured insurance coverage and the comptroller of a company that obtained coverage through that entity testified that he dealt mostly with Michael Glick in discussing coverage.
We have considered petitioners' remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Wallach, Nardelli, Williams and Tom, JJ.