Opinion
March 23, 1999
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County [Louise Gruner Gans, J.].
Accepting the credibility determinations of the Hearing Officer ( Matter of Berenhaus v. Ward, 70 N.Y.2d 436, 443), the record provides substantial evidence ( see, 300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v. State Div. of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d 176, 179) that petitioner, a licensed excess line broker, violated Insurance Law §§ 2105 and 2118 and Insurance Department Regulation 41 ( 11 NYCRR 27.21) by filing excess line affidavits on behalf of a producing broker unlicenced to procure excess line coverage; that petitioner violated Insurance Law § 2118 (c) and Insurance Department Regulation 41 by failing to maintain "a complete and separate record" regarding excess coverage procured; and that petitioner violated Insurance Law § 2120 and Insurance Department Regulation 29 ( 11 NYCRR 20.3 [b] [4]) by improperly utilizing a single checking account for the deposit of premiums and payment of operating expenses. In connection with the finding that petitioner violated the Insurance Law and Insurance Department Regulations in a manner referenced in a Department Circular Letter as "fronting", since the Department's interpretation of the applicable law and regulations is neither "irrational [n]or unreasonable", it will not be disturbed ( Matter of Howard v. Wyman, 28 N.Y.2d 434, 438; accord, Matter of Bernstein v. Toia, 43 N.Y.2d 437, 448).
Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Williams and Wallach, JJ.