Opinion
July 12, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Mordue, J.
Present — Callahan, J.P., Denman, Boomer, Balio and Lowery, JJ.
Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs, in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in failing to dismiss plaintiff's fourth and fifth causes of action. Plaintiff's fourth cause of action seeks damages premised on alleged violations of Insurance Law § 2601, and its fifth cause of action seeks damages on a common-law theory of bad faith premised on the unfair claim settlement practices. Because Insurance Law § 2601 does not create a private right of action, the fourth cause of action should have been dismissed (see, Royal Globe Ins. Co. v Chock Full O'Nuts Corp., 86 A.D.2d 315, 316, lv dismissed 58 N.Y.2d 605, 800; see also, Telemaque v New York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assn., 162 A.D.2d 444; Dano v Royal Globe Ins. Co., 89 A.D.2d 817, 818, affd 59 N.Y.2d 827). Moreover, both the fourth and fifth causes of action should have been dismissed because plaintiff failed to offer any proof to demonstrate a pattern of bad faith or unfair practices (see, Dano v Royal Globe Ins. Co., 59 N.Y.2d 827; Hubbell v Trans World Life Ins. Co., 50 N.Y.2d 899; Halpin v Prudential Ins. Co., 48 N.Y.2d 906; Belco Petroleum Corp. v AIG Oil Rig, 164 A.D.2d 583; M.S.R. Assocs. v Consolidated Mut. Ins. Co., 58 A.D.2d 858).
We have examined the other issues raised on appeal and find them to be without merit.