Garfield v. Holz

¶1The order of Special Term should be affirmed. It may not be said that the refusal of the Superintendent of Insurance and the Attorney-General, was without reasonable basis. We do not pass upon any of the other questions ruled upon by Special Term, including the question as to whether this policyholder has the right to institute suit. Order unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondents. Concur — Peek, P. J., Breitel, Botein, Rabin and Frank, JJ.