§Why CasetextPricing

Excess Line Association of New York (ELANY), Appellant,v.Waldorf & Associates, et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

Brief

10 Cited authorities

  1. Parochial v. Board of Educ

    60 N.Y.2d 539 (N.Y. 1983)   Cited 827 times
    Holding that § 3813's notice of claim requirement "is not satisfied by presentment to any other individual or body"

  2. Burns Jackson v. Lindner

    59 N.Y.2d 314 (N.Y. 1983)   Cited 816 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiff had common law right to sue for illegal strikes despite lack of a private cause of action under New York statute prohibiting illegal strikes

  3. Sheehy v. Big Flats Community

    73 N.Y.2d 629 (N.Y. 1989)   Cited 343 times
    Rejecting implied right of action as "inconsistent with the evident legislative purpose underlying the (statutory) scheme" and refusing to "overrid(e) this legislative policy judgment"

  4. Community Bd. 7 v. Schaffer

    84 N.Y.2d 148 (N.Y. 1994)   Cited 243 times
    Finding such a stake where the defendant's breach of a covenant affected plaintiff's property interest

  5. Boreali v. Axelrod

    71 N.Y.2d 1 (N.Y. 1987)   Cited 243 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Finding proper balance between health concerns and cost "is a uniquely legislative function"

  6. Varela v. Investors Insurance Holding Corp.

    81 N.Y.2d 958 (N.Y. 1993)   Cited 73 times
    Finding no private right of action under article 29-H of the General Business Law

  7. Medical Malpractice Insurance Ass'n v. Superintendent of Insurance

    72 N.Y.2d 753 (N.Y. 1988)   Cited 58 times   2 Legal Analyses

    Argued November 16, 1988 Decided December 15, 1988 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, Martin Evans, J. Robert Abrams, Attorney-General (Richard G. Liskov, O. Peter Sherwood and Lawrence S. Kahn of counsel), for appellant. T. Richard Kennedy, Larry P. Schiffer and Michael A. Knoerzer for respondent. TITONE, J. In response to the continuing upward spiral of medical malpractice liability insurance, the Legislature, in 1985 and again in 1986, passed

  8. Matter of Excess Line Association v. Curiale

    209 A.D.2d 365 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

    November 29, 1994 Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol E. Huff, J.), entered on or about March 30, 1994, unanimously affirmed for the reasons stated by Huff, J., without costs and disbursements. No opinion. Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Kupferman and Asch, JJ.

  9. Section 18031 - Affordable choices of health benefit plans

    42 U.S.C. § 18031   Cited 65 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Allowing a State to create "one Exchange ... for providing ... services to both qualified individuals and qualified small employers," rather than creating separate Exchanges for those two groups

  10. Section 2130 - [Expires 7/1/2029] Excess line association

    N.Y. Ins. Law § 2130   Cited 9 times

    (a) There is hereby created a non-profit association to be known as the excess line association of New York. All excess line licensees shall be deemed to be members of the association. The association must perform its functions under the plan of operation established and approved under subsection (c) of this section and must exercise its powers through a board of directors established under subsection (b) of this section. The association shall be supervised by the superintendent. The association