BAM Brokerage Corp. v. State of NY, 88 Civ. 5714 (RWS).

Decision Date16 October 1989
Docket NumberNo. 88 Civ. 5714 (RWS).,88 Civ. 5714 (RWS).
Citation724 F. Supp. 146
PartiesB.A.M. BROKERAGE CORP., et al., Plaintiff, v. The STATE OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
MEMORANDUM OPINION

SWEET, District Judge.

Plaintiffs B.A.M. Brokerage Corporation and some one hundred other individuals and corporations licensed to sell insurance in New York (the "Brokers") have moved pursuant to Local Rule 3(j) and Rules 59 and 60(b), Fed.R.Civ.P., for an order granting reargument of the court's August 4, 1989 opinion, 718 F.Supp. 1195, (the "Opinion") and, upon reargument, denying the defendants' motion for summary judgment. Familiarity with the Opinion is assumed.

A court should grant a motion to reargue under Local Rule 3(j) only if the moving party presents matters or controlling decisions the court overlooked that might materially have influenced the earlier decision. See Gibson v. American Broadcasting Cos., Inc., 700 F.Supp. 707, 708 (S.D.N.Y.1988); Ruiz v. Commissioner of DOT, 687 F.Supp. 888, 890 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 858 F.2d 898 (2d Cir.1988). The rule's purpose is to "dissuade repetitive arguments on issues that have already been considered fully by the court." Caleb & Co. v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co., 624 F.Supp. 747, 748 (S.D.N.Y.1985). A party should not treat a motion to reargue as a substitute for appealing from a final judgment. See Korwek v. Hunt, 649 F.Supp. 1547, 1548 (S.D.N.Y.1986), aff'd, 827 F.2d 874 (2d Cir.1987).

The Brokers' argue that this court overlooked section 2110 of the New York Insurance law when it issued the Opinion. In an affirmation submitted in support of the motion for reargument, the Brokers stated:

2. A copy of the Opinion ... is annexed hereto as Exhibit "A." At page 20 this Court states:
The Brokers argue that Corcoran's practice of adopting the Hearing Officers' recommendations without reviewing the transcript or exhibits establish bias. However, nothing in the statute governing Hearing Officers and their reports requires the Superintendent to review the record underlying a Hearing Officer's report. Citing N.Y. Ins.Law Section 304(a)(b).
3. However, the statute relied upon and quoted verbatim by the Court only deals with the Superintendent's authority to appoint Hearing Officers, for such persons to report to the Superintendent and the Superintendent's authority to use the report as the basis for the Superintendent's determination. However, N.Y. Ins.Law Section 2110 provides for the Superintendent to make the determinations to revoke licenses and/or suspend the same. The statute requires such determination to be made by the Superintendent, not the Hearing Officer.
Thus, while the Superintendent may under Section 304 appoint Hearing Officers and they may make recommendations and reports to him, the duty is still the Superintendent's to make the determination.

Weg Aff. ¶¶ 2-3.

In fact, the Opinion cited section 2110 at page 1197, stating: "Any person who violates section 2117 is subject to a $500 per month forfeiture, N.Y.Ind.Law § 2117(g) (McKinney 1985), and a Licensee who violates the Insurance Law is subject to license suspension, revocation and/or civil penalty. See id. at §§ 109, 2110." (Emphasis added).

Moreover, the Brokers' interpretation of section 2110 finds no support in the statute. That section provides that the Superintendent "may refuse to renew, revoke or may suspend for a period he determines the license of any insurance agent or insurance broker ... if, after notice and hearing, he determines that the licensee ... has violated the Insurance Law." (Emphasis added). Section 304(a) provides for a hearing before the Superintendent or "any designated salaried employee of the department authorized by the superintendent for such purpose." Section 304(b) requires the hearing officer to "report his findings, orally or in writing, to the superintendent with or without recommendation" and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • US v. All Right, Title & Interest In Property
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 12 Diciembre 1990
    ...been met, see Ruiz v. Comm'r of Dept. of Transp. of City of New York, 687 F.Supp. 888, 890 (S.D.N.Y.1988); B.A.M. Brokerage Corp. v. New York, 724 F.Supp. 146, 147 (S.D.N.Y. 1989); H. Sand & Co., Inc. v. Airtemp Corp., 743 F.Supp. 279 (S.D.N.Y.1990) (Cooper, J.), we granted, on September 25......
  • Novak v. National Broadcasting Co., Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 13 Noviembre 1989
    ... ... No. 88 Civ. 5380 (RWS) ... United States District ... Miller Music Corp., 174 F.Supp. 192, 195 (S.D.N. Y.1959)); cf ...         The NBC Defendants state that they "have no well-grounded legal objection ... ...
  • H. Sand & Co., Inc. v. Airtemp Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 30 Agosto 1990
    ...of D.O.T. of City of New York, 687 F.Supp. 888, 890 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 858 F.2d 898 (2d Cir.1988); B.A.M. Brokerage Corp. v. New York, 724 F.Supp. 146, 147 (S.D.N.Y.1989); Caleb & Co. v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co., 624 F.Supp. 747, 748 (S.D.N.Y.1985). "Motions for reargument will be grant......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT