Matter of People (Int'l Workers Order)
Cases that cite this one
23 later published cases cite this decision.
- Sylvia Bennett v. The United States (Court of Claims 1966)
- Thatcher v. City Terrace Cultural Center (Cal. Ct. App. 1960)
- Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. Colorado Division of Insurance (Colo. App. 1991)
- Blood Service Plan Insurance v. Roddis (Cal. Ct. App. 1968)
- Mtr. of Stewart (Citizens Cas. Co.) (N.Y. 1968)
- International Workers Order, Inc. v. New York ex rel. Bohlinger (Supreme Court of the United States 1953)
- Serio v. Ardra Insurance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
- Aetna Casualty. v. County of Nassau (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
- People v. Oliver Schools, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
- Health Insurance Ass'n of America v. Harnett (N.Y. 1978)
- Wnek Vending & Amusements, Inc. v. City of Buffalo (New York Supreme Court 1978)
- People ex rel. Lewis v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America (New York Supreme Court 1978)
- Levine v. Whalen (N.Y. 1976)
- Nassau Insurance v. Ebin (New York Supreme Court 1975)
- Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc. v. Hostetter (New York Supreme Court 1965)
- Martin v. State Liquor Authority (New York Supreme Court 1964)
- Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance v. Thacher (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1961)
- Sylvander v. Taber (New York Supreme Court 1959)
- In re the Arbitration between Knickerbocker Agency, Inc. & Holz (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1957)
- Bohlinger v. International Workers Order (Alleghany County Court of Common Pleas 1956)
- Castle Hill Beach Club, Inc. v. Arbury (New York Supreme Court 1955)
- Peters v. New York City Housing Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1954)
- Peters v. New York City Housing Authority (New York Supreme Court 1953)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
As we read section 511 (e) of the Insurance Law, the term “ hazardous ”, contrary to the assertion of the Superintendent of Insurance, encompasses only dangers financial in nature. In our view, however, the record supports the conclusion that further operation of the I. W. O. would prove “ hazardous ” in a financial sense.
*263 Be that as it may, though, there can he no question that the I. W. O.’s continued course of political action, involving as it did financing Communist Party organizers and publications, disseminating Party literature, and supporting Communist policies and candidates for public office, violates the I. W. 0. charter as well as laws of this state and, therefore, permits liquidation under section 511 (f). These activities, carried on for almost two decades with the active support of the membership, were unauthorized by the Order’s charter and, perhaps, even contravened its express provisions. Indeed, its failure to include a true and complete statement of its “ purposes ”, as well as ‘1 the mode and manner in which its corporate powers are * * * exercised ”, offends against the demands of paragraphs (c) and (d) of subdivision 3 of section 463 of the Insurance Law. Moreover, as noted, its political activities involve, in the language of section 671 of the Penal Law, a use of “ money or property * * * for, or in aid of, any corporation * * * or other association organized or maintained for political purposes, or for * * s any candidate for political office * * :S or for any political purpose whatever, ’ ’ and, as a consequence, violate that provision as well. So dominant was the I. W. O.’s allegiance to its unlawful purpose that, in reality, the Order ‘ ‘ wasted and perverted the privileges conferred by [its] charter, abused its powers, and * * * substituted [illegal action] for the conduct which the State had a right to expect and require.” (People v. North Riv. Sugar Refining Co., 121 N. Y. 582, 623.) The abuses noted undoubtedly Avarranted liquidation of the I. W. 0. under applicable provisions of the Insurance Law.
As for the contention advanced by appellants-interveners, the International Workers Order Policyholders Protective Committee, that liquidation would cause undue hardship to the many members who cannot otherwise secure insurance protection, it is sufficient to note that counsel for the Insurance Department, authorized to do so by the Superintendent of Insurance, gave assurance upon the argument before us that arrangements have been made for the reinsurance of “ all [I. W. 0.] policyholders ”, that there are “ companies prepared to issue insurance on the same basis as those insured now enjoy ” and that *264 “ every member of the I. W. 0. will be insured on substantially the same contract ” as he now has.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Froessel, JJ., concur; Lowhran, Ch. J., deceased.
Order affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.