
    I. Tanenbaum, Son & Co., Respondent, v. Rothenberg & Co., Appellant.
    
      Contract — agreement by defendant to procure insurance for a period of years through plaintiff as its agent — action for breach — defense that contract was violative of Insurance Law — demurrer thereto sustained.
    
    
      Tanenbaum, Son & Co. v. Rothenberg & Co., 201 App. Div. 272, affirmed.
    (Argued November 20, 1922;
    decided May 8, 1923.)
    Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered May 19, 1922, which reversed an order of Special Term overruling a demurrer to a separate defense in. the answer and sustained said demurrer. The action was to recover for breach of a written contract whereby defendant agreed to procure through the plaintiff as its agent fire insurance policies on certain buildings for a period of five years. The defense demurred to read as follows: “ That the contract or agreement alleged to have been made between the plaintiff and the defendant was a contract made and entered into in violation of the Insurance Law of the state of New York and was unlawful and illegal under the laws of the state of New York and contrary to the public policy of the state of New York.”
    The following question was certified: “ Is the separate and distinct defense contained in paragraph fourth of the answer herein insufficient in law upon the face thereof? ”
    
      Nathan D. Stern for appellant.
    
      David Leventritt, Alexander L. Strouse, Terence J. McManus and Mayer L. Halff for respondent.
   Order affirmed, with costs; question certified answered in the affirmative; no opinion.

Concur: His cock, Ch. J., Pound, McLaughlin and Andrews, JJ. ..Dissenting: Hogan and Crane,- JJ. Not voting: Cardozo, J.  