Although the Insurance Dept is required to do things, the courts cannot make them to do them

Reminds me of Robert Moses and the his public authorities.

Matter of Okslen Acupuncture v Dinallo, 2010 NY Slip Op 07241 (App. Div., 1st 2010)

The petition was correctly dismissed as against respondent Superintendent on the ground that it seeks to compel discretionary acts (see Klostermann v Cuomo, 61 NY2d 525, 539 [1984]; LMK Psychological Servs., P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 12 NY3d 217, 223 [2009]; Sightseeing Tours of Am., Inc. v Air Pegasus Heliport, Inc., 40 AD3d 354 [2007], lv denied 9 [*2]NY3d 817 [2008]). Although Insurance Law § 309 requires the Superintendent to undertake periodic examinations of insurance companies, it appears that the scope of an examination and remedies to be employed to correct misconduct are left entirely to the Superintendent's discretion (cf. Insurance Law § 310, § 311); certainly, petitioner points to nothing in the Insurance Law requiring the Superintendent to investigate particular matters or take specific remedial action based on the findings of an examination. As against the insurers and NICB, a not-for-profit organization funded by the insurance industry, the petition was correctly dismissed in the absence of allegations that petitioners are employees or members of these private parties affected by the discharge of their rules or bylaws (see Matter of De Petris v Union Settlement Assn., 86 NY2d 406, 411 n [1995]; cf. Matter of Levandusky v One Fifth Ave. Apt. Corp., 75 NY2d 530, 536-537, 541-542 [1990]). We have considered petitioners' other arguments and find them unavailing

The bold is mine.