N.Y. Laws » CHAPTER Insurance / ARTICLE Agents, Brokers, Adjusters, Consultants and Intermediaries
New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Insurance Law § 2127 (2026)

Penalties for violations

✓ text as retrieved May 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
§ 2127. Penalties for violations. (a) The superintendent, in lieu of
revoking or suspending the license of a licensee in accordance with the
provisions of this article, may in any one proceeding by order, require
the licensee to pay to the people of this state a penalty in a sum not
exceeding five hundred dollars for each offense, and a penalty in a sum
not exceeding twenty-five hundred dollars in the aggregate for all
offenses.
  (b) Upon the failure of such a licensee to pay such penalty ordered
pursuant to subsection (a) hereof within twenty days after the mailing
of such order, postage prepaid, registered, and addressed to the last
known place of business of such licensee, unless such order is stayed by
an order of a court of competent jurisdiction, the superintendent may
revoke the license of such licensee or may suspend the same for such
period as he determines.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases, 1990–2020 · leading case: Melville Capital, LLC v. Gugick, 144 A.D.3d 999 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Melville Capital, LLC v. Gugick, 144 A.D.3d 999 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2016). “Under the circumstances of this case, the defendant failed to demonstrate that certain sections of Insurance Law article 21 and Insurance Law article 78 provided a basis for voiding the subject agreement in which he agreed to pay the plaintiff a commission for brokering the sale…”
John Paterno, Inc. v. Curiale, 668 N.E.2d 395 (N.Y. 1996). “In this case, the Superintendent took into account various mitigating factors and imposed a fine of $45 for each violation instead of revoking or suspending Paterno’s license (see, Insurance Law § 2110 [a]) or imposing the maximum authorized fine of $500 per violation (see,…”
Hroncich v. Corcoran, 158 A.D.2d 274 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 1990). · cites it 2× “) However, we agree with petitioner that the imposition of monetary sanctions under both section 109 and section 2117 was improper and, further, that Insurance Law § 2127 prohibits the imposition of monetary sanctions in addition to the sanction of license suspension.”
Fox v. Corcoran, 172 A.D.2d 523 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 1991). “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 v Corcoran, supra).”
Hroncich v. Corcoran, 177 A.D.2d 389 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 1991). · cites it 3× “) entered August 15, 1990, which denied petitioner’s application to vacate respondent’s determination, on remand, dated February 27, 1990, imposing a penalty in the sum of $67,330 pursuant to Insurance Law §2127, is unanimously affirmed, without costs.”
Matter of Buffalo Bail Bonds Agency Inc. v. Vullo, 181 A.D.3d 1346 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2020). “Insurance Law § 2127 (a) provides that respondent may impose "a penalty in a sum not exceeding five hundred dollars for each offense, and a penalty in a sum not exceeding twenty-five hundred dollars in the aggregate for all offenses" (emphasis added), and similar language is…”
Montuori v. Corcoran, 160 A.D.2d 621 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 1990). “, 66 NY2d 444 .) In view of the 759 offenses found to have been committed by petitioners, the penalty imposed, namely revocation of petitioners’ licenses unless they make restitution and pay $2,500 each in civil penalties (see, Insurance Law § 2127), is neither shocking to one’s…”
I.H. Greenwald Assocs., Inc. v. Cooper, 171 A.D.2d 466 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 1991). “Finally, the imposition of a penalty which combines license revocation with monetary sanctions was improper in that the two types of penalties are to be treated as alternative penalties (see, Insurance Law § 2127; Matter of Hroncich v Corcoran, 158 AD2d 274 ).”
Solot v. Corcoran, 178 A.D.2d 108 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 1991). “We also find that the $19,845 penalty imposed upon petitioners pursuant to Insurance Law § 2127, in lieu of revocation or suspension of licenses presently held, was in conformity with this Court’s decision in Matter of Hroncich v Corcoran ( 158 AD2d 274 , supra), and not so…”
Citron v. Curiale, 273 A.D.2d 183 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2000). “Finally, we note that, consistent with Insurance Law § 2127 (a), respondent’s determination did not impose any monetary penalty in addition to revoking petitioner’s licenses.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.