Opinion
April 26, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County, Burton Sherman, J.
The Superintendent's determination that petitioners violated Insurance Law § 2119 (c) (1) by improperly collecting service fees from contractors for procuring surety bonds for them without obtaining a signed memorandum specifying the amount of the service fee, is supported by substantial evidence and rationally based. Similarly, the Superintendent's interpretation of Insurance Law § 2119 (c) (1) to include within the meaning of "insured" a contractor who purchases a surety bond is neither irrational nor unreasonable, and will be accorded the great deference to which it is entitled. (See, Matter of New York Pub. Interest Research Group v. New York State Dept. of Ins., 66 N.Y.2d 444. )
In view of the 759 offenses found to have been committed by petitioners, the penalty imposed, namely revocation of petitioners' licenses unless they make restitution and pay $2,500 each in civil penalties (see, Insurance Law § 2127), is neither shocking to one's sense of fairness (Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v. Corcoran, 157 A.D.2d 629) nor disproportionate to the offense. (Matter of Bowley Assocs. v. State of N.Y. Ins. Dept., 98 A.D.2d 521, 527, affd 63 N.Y.2d 982.)
We have considered petitioners' remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Ross, Rosenberger, Kassal and Wallach, JJ.