Copr. © West 2000 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works
567 N.Y.S.2d 866
(Cite as: 172 A.D.2d 523, 567 N.Y.S.2d 866)
Supreme Court, Appellate Division,
Second Department, New York.
In the Matter of Richard S. FOX, etc., et al.,
Petitioners; James P. Corcoran, etc., et al., Respondents.
April 1, 1991.
Insurance sellers sought review of determination suspending their licenses and imposing penalties for violation of Insurance Law by promoting and participating in sale of memberships in motor club that was not licensed by state department of insurance. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, held that, although evidence supported determination that sellers violated law, monetary penalty could be imposed under only one of two statutes and license suspension in addition to penalty was not authorized.
Confirmed in part; annulled in part; remitted with directions.
 Insurance k1571
Evidence supported determination that insurance sellers violated insurance law by promoting and participating in sale of memberships in motor club that was not licensed by state department of insurance. McKinney's Insurance Law §§ 109, 2117.
 Insurance k1270(2)
Insurance sellers who violated Insurance Law by promoting and participating in sale of memberships in motor club that was not licensed by state department of insurance could not be subject to monetary sanction under both statute providing for $500 penalty for each offense and statute providing for $500 penalty for each month that violation continued. McKinney's Insurance Law §§ 109, 2117.
 Insurance k1127
Insurance sellers against whom monetary penalty was imposed for violation of Insurance Law could not also have their licenses suspended; although law allowed sanction of suspension, suspension was to be considered as alternative to monetary sanction. McKinney's Insurance Law §§ 2117, 2127. **866 Weg & Myers, P.C., New York City (Dennis T. D'Antonio, of counsel; Michael J. Burke, on the brief), for petitioners.
Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen., New York City (Marcie S. Mintz, of counsel), for respondents.
Before MANGANO, P.J., and BRACKEN, SULLIVAN and MILLER, JJ.
**867 *523 MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent New York State Department of Insurance, dated December 16, 1988, which, after a hearing, suspended the petitioners' license to sell insurance for a period of not less than one year and directed them to pay "as penalty and forfeit", the sum of $269,750 pursuant to Insurance Law §§ 109 and 2117.
ADJUDGED that the petition is granted, on the law, without costs or disbursements, to the extent that the penalty imposed is annulled, the determination is otherwise confirmed, and the matter is remitted to the respondent New York State Department of Insurance for the imposition of a new penalty in accordance herewith.
 The record contains substantial evidence supporting the determination that the petitioners violated Insurance Law § 2117 by promoting and participating in the sale of 1,039 memberships in the American Motor Club (hereinafter AMC), an entity which was not licensed by the New York State Department of Insurance. Accordingly, we do not disturb this finding (see, 300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v. State Div. of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d 176, 179, 180, 408 N.Y.S.2d 54, 379 N.E.2d 1183).
 The respondents imposed a monetary penalty of $269,750, which included penalty of $259,750, pursuant to Insurance Law § 109 (which was one-half of the maximum permissible penalty under that statute, i.e., $519,500 [$500 for each of 1,039 offenses] ) plus $10,000 pursuant to Insurance Law § 2117*524 ($500 for each month that the violation continued, which in this case was 20 months). However, we agree with the petitioners that the imposition of monetary sanctions under both Insurance Law §§ 109 and 2117 was improper (see, Matter of Hroncich v. Corcoran, 158 A.D.2d 274, 275, 550 N.Y.S.2d 676). The respondents also suspended the petitioners' licenses for a period of one year. Although Insurance Law § 2127 allows the sanction of a license suspension, the sanction of revocation or suspension is to be considered as an alternative to monetary sanctions. However, we note that Insurance Law § 2127 does permit a monetary sanction of $2,500 in addition to the penalty of up to $500 for each violation (Matter of Hroncich, supra ). Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the respondents for the imposition of a new penalty.