Summary
In Siegel, an insurance agent had been sued for making false and fraudulent "comparisons" between insurance policies, an act which subjected him to criminal as well as civil penalties (Insurance Law, § 127, subd. 4). At an examination before trial, the defendant admitted that his employees had dealt with the plaintiff but denied any personal knowledge of the transactions.
Summary of this case from Steinbrecher v. WapnickOpinion
Argued March 8, 1944
Decided April 20, 1944
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
Joseph Lonardo, Irving M. Radin and E.F.W. Wildermuth for appellant.
Lawrence S. Timen and Harris J. Griston for respondent.
Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
Concur: LEHMAN, Ch. J., LOUGHRAN, LEWIS, CONWAY, DESMOND and THACHER, JJ. Taking no part: RIPPEY, J.