New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Insurance Law § 7419 (2026)

Injunctions

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§ 7419. Injunctions. (a) Upon application by the superintendent for an
order to show cause under this article or at any time thereafter, the
court in which such order is made, or any justice thereof may without
notice issue an injunction restraining the insurer, its officers,
directors, shareholders, members, trustees, agents, servants, employees,
policyholders, attorneys, managers, and all other persons from the
transaction of its business or the waste or disposition of its property
until further order of the court.
  (b) Such court or justice may at any time during a proceeding under
this article issue such other injunctions or orders as it deems
necessary to prevent interference with the superintendent or the
proceeding, or waste of the assets of the insurer, or the commencement
or prosecution of any actions, the obtaining of preferences, judgments,
attachments or other liens, or the making of any levy against the
insurer, its assets or any part thereof.
  (c) Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of this section and any
other provision of this article, a federal home loan bank shall not be
stayed, enjoined, or prohibited from exercising any right or enforcing
any obligation under a federal home loan bank security agreement
relating to collateral pledged by an insurer-member to such federal home
loan bank.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 15 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1986–2024 · leading case: Di Loreto v. Costigan, 600 F. Supp. 2d 671 (E.D. Pa. 2009).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Di Loreto v. Costigan, 600 F. Supp. 2d 671 (E.D. Pa. 2009). · cites it 2× “N.Y. Ins. Law § 7419 (b) (1984). A plain reading of this text suggests that its purpose is to preserve assets of the liquidated insurance company by limiting claims.”

Michigan Nat'l Bank-Oakland v. Am. Centennial Ins., 200 A.D.2d 99 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994). “We also agree with the court’s reasoning in dismissing the reinsurers’ counterclaims against the Liquidator, while sustaining their affirmative defense of fraud in the inducement against him inasmuch as the counterclaim for rescission based upon Union Indemnity’s fraud…”

Callon Petroleum v. New York State Dep't of Ins., 27 A.D.3d 274 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006). “Insurance Law § 7419 provides for injunctions with respect to proceedings involving delinquent insurers such as Frontier.”

Ochs v. Simon (In Re First Cent. Fin. Corp.), 269 B.R. 502 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2001). “This injunction is statutorily authorized by N.Y. Ins. Law § 7419 (b) (McKinney 2000), which provides that the state court “may at any time .”

Everest Reinsurance Co v. Wrynn, 87 A.D.3d 487 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011). · cites it 3× “) placed Midland Insurance Company in liquidation and permanently enjoined the commencement and prosecution of all actions against it (see Insurance Law § 7419 [b]). Everest Reinsurance Company entered into excess of loss reinsurance treaties and facultative reinsurance…”

Capitol Indem. Corp. v. Curiale, 871 F. Supp. 205 (S.D.N.Y. 1994). “” N.Y.Ins.Law § 7419(b) (McICinney 1985). Accordingly, in this case, the state court enjoined all persons "from bringing or further prosecuting any action at law [or] suit in equity” against the Superintendent, or his successors, as Liquidator or Conservator.”

In re the Liquidation of the Union Indem. Ins., 132 Misc. 2d 102 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1986). “The Superintendent of Insurance, as liquidator of Union Indemnity Insurance Company of New York (Union), seeks an order, pursuant to Insurance Law § 7419, directing Frank B. Hall and Co.”

In re the Rehab. of Frontier Ins., 57 A.D.3d 1302 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008). “To further the rehabilitation scheme, courts may impose injunctions prohibiting commencement or prosecution of litigation against an insolvent insurer while rehabilitation efforts are underway (see Insurance Law § 7419 [b]; Matter of Knickerbocker Agency [Holz], 4 NY2d at 250).”

Lac D'Amiante du Quebec v. Am. Home Assurance Co., 864 F.2d 1033 (3rd Cir. 1988). “16 Finally, we note that the case at bar does not require this Court to lay down a per se rule that district courts must always abstain from an action against an insurance company the instant a state court places the company in liquidation proceedings.”

In re Exec. Life Ins. Co., 103 A.D.3d 631 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013). “, 36 Misc 3d 635, 636-638 [2012]; Insurance Law § 7419 [b]). Dillon, J.P., Chambers, Sgroi and Miller, JJ.”

Levin v. Deera Homes, Inc., 283 A.D.2d 258 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001). “Furthermore, contrary to defendant’s assertion, there was no need to immediately address the counterclaims in defendant’s answer, which sought, inter alia, a declaratory judgment that it was entitled to the security deposit, as such claims for relief were already encompassed by…”

Hala v. Orange Reg'l Med. Ctr., 2019 NY Slip Op 7387 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019). · cites it 2× “[FN3] Pursuant to both New York's and South Carolina's enactments of the UILA, a court hearing liquidation proceedings may issue orders or injunctions to prevent interference with the proceedings or dissipation of the insurer's assets ( see Insurance Law § 7419[b]; SC Code Ann §…”

Show all 15 citing cases →

— N.Y. Insurance Law § 7419(b) — 3 cases

Matter of Harris, 2024 NY Slip Op 33414(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. 2024).

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.