You are here: / / DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE PROPERLY INCLUDED THE COSTS OF SUB-ALLOCATED PROGRAMS...

DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE PROPERLY INCLUDED THE COSTS OF SUB-ALLOCATED PROGRAMS (ADMINISTERED BY OTHER DEPARTMENTS) IN ITS ASSESSMENTS OF OPERATING EXPENSES TO BE PAID BY INSURERS.

In an extensive, detailed opinion by Justice Clark (too detailed to be fairly summarized here), the Third Department determined statutes requiring insurers to pay pro rata shares of the annual operating expenses of the Department of Finance (formerly the Insurance Department), including expenses associated with certain programs administered by other departments (sub-allocated programs), are constitutional. The Third Department further found the assessments imposed on the insurers, which included the costs of the sub-allocated programs, were not arbitrary and capricious and were not imposed in excess of the authority of the Department of Finance. New York Ins. Assn., Inc. v State of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 07076, 3rd Dept 10-27-16

 

INSURANCE LAW (DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE PROPERLY INCLUDED THE COSTS OF SUB-ALLOCATED PROGRAMS (ADMINISTERED BY OTHER DEPARTMENTS) IN ITS ASSESSMENTS OF THE DEPARTMENT’S OF OPERATING EXPENSES TO BE PAID BY INSURERS)/FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF (DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE PROPERLY INCLUDED THE COSTS OF SUB-ALLOCATED PROGRAMS (ADMINISTERED BY OTHER DEPARTMENTS) IN ITS ASSESSMENTS OF THE DEPARTMENT’S OF OPERATING EXPENSES TO BE PAID BY INSURERS)

You might also like
DRIVERS FOR A LIMOUSINE SERVICE WERE NOT ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS, UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEAL BOARD REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER STACKED SCAFFOLDING, WHICH WAS ON THE SAME LEVEL AS PLAINTIFF, CONSTITUTED A “PHYSICALLY SIGNIFICANT ELEVATION DIFFERENTIAL,” SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT HAVE A JUSTIFIABLE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO COMPLY WITH THE 90-DAY DEMAND TO FILE A NOTE OF ISSUE PURSUANT TO CPLR 3216, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).
Solid Waste Facility Operating Agreement Not a Lease—No Permissive Referendum Required
DEFENDANTS RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT SUPPORTING A “FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT” DEFENSE TO THE ACTION BASED UPON AN EXECUTED PROMISSORY NOTE (THIRD DEPT).
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANTS DID NOT SEE THE PLAINTIFF, THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A PATIENT-PHYSICIAN RELATIONSHIP WAS CREATED BASED UPON ANOTHER DOCTOR’S ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF BE SEEN BY THOSE DEFENDANTS WITHIN ONE OR TWO DAYS (THIRD DEPT).
AFTER TERMINATION OF BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS PLAINTIFF CANNOT SUE ON INVOICES NOT INCLUDED IN THE SCHEDULE OF ASSETS.
Tour Musicians Were Employees of Columbia Artists Management; Workers Who Loaded and Unloaded Equipment Were Not Employees

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

FAMILY COURT DID NOT PROPERLY APPLY THE STATUTORY FACTORS, FORUM NON CONVENIENS... ELEVATOR NOT A SAFETY DEVICE, LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DIS...