Agency for Investigation & Detection, Inc. v. Department of State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Agency for Investigation & Detection, Inc. v. Department of State

25 A.D.2d 738, 269 N.Y.S.2d 168, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4435

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 26, 1966

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 25 A.D.2d 738 (Agency for Investigation & Detection, Inc. v. Department of State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Agency for Investigation & Detection, Inc. v. Department of State, 25 A.D.2d 738, 269 N.Y.S.2d 168, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4435 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinions

Judgment dismissing article 78 proceeding affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements to respondent. The petitioner, the holder of a private investigator’s license, and its agents, in the course of a raid to obtain evidence in a divorce ease, acted in a shocking and most callous disregard of law and the rights of individuals. There was evidence that the entry into the private apartment was obtained by breaking a chain lock, and that, then, the raiding party, including the employees of the licensee, pushed, shoved and committed acts amounting [739]*739to assaults upon the persons of the occupants of the apartment; and, further, that bottles containing about $50 worth of perfume were broken by the intruders. In view of the outrageous conduct of the investigators and the general lawlessness of their acts, the penalty of a two months’ suspension is not “so disproportionate to the offense * * * as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness” and, thus, to warrant an interference with the discretion reposed in the respondent. (See CPLR 7803, subd. 3; Matter of Stolz v. Board of Regents, 4 A D 2d 361, 364; Matter of McGinnis’ Rest. v. Rohan, 6 A D 2d 115, affd. 6 N Y 2d 770; Matter of Mitthauer v. Patterson, 8 N Y 2d 37.)

Concur — Breitel, J. P., Stevens and Eager, JJ.; McNally and Steuer, JJ,, dissent in part in the following memorandum by

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Judgment dismissing article 78 proceeding affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements to respondent. The petitioner, the holder of a private investigator’s license, and its agents, in the course of a raid to obtain evidence in a divorce ease, acted in a shocking and most callous disregard of law and the rights of individuals. There was evidence that the entry into the private apartment was obtained by breaking a chain lock, and that, then, the raiding party, including the employees of the licensee, pushed, shoved and committed acts amounting [739]*739to assaults upon the persons of the occupants of the apartment; and, further, that bottles containing about $50 worth of perfume were broken by the intruders. In view of the outrageous conduct of the investigators and the general lawlessness of their acts, the penalty of a two months’ suspension is not “so disproportionate to the offense * * * as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness” and, thus, to warrant an interference with the discretion reposed in the respondent. (See CPLR 7803, subd. 3; Matter of Stolz v. Board of Regents, 4 A D 2d 361, 364; Matter of McGinnis’ Rest. v. Rohan, 6 A D 2d 115, affd. 6 N Y 2d 770; Matter of Mitthauer v. Patterson, 8 N Y 2d 37.)

Concur — Breitel, J. P., Stevens and Eager, JJ.; McNally and Steuer, JJ,, dissent in part in the following memorandum by

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.2d 738, 269 N.Y.S.2d 168, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4435, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/agency-for-investigation-detection-inc-v-department-of-state-nyappdiv-1966.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack