Andersen v. Cuomo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Andersen v. Cuomo

67 A.D.2d 690, 412 N.Y.S.2d 579, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10298

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

DecidedJanuary 22, 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 67 A.D.2d 690 (Andersen v. Cuomo) 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

Andersen v. Cuomo, 67 A.D.2d 690, 412 N.Y.S.2d 579, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10298 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

— Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review so much of a determination of the respondent Secretary of State, dated December 27, 1977, as, after a hearing, found that the petitioner had demonstrated untrustworthiness and incompetency as a real estate broker under subdivision 1 of section 441-c of the Real Property Law and suspended his license as a broker for a period of six months or, in lieu thereof, imposed a fine of $1,000. Determination confirmed insofar as reviewed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, with costs. The case of Partridge v Lomenzo (37 AD2d 180), upon which petitioner relies heavily, is distinguishable on its facts. The other points urged by petitioner have been considered and have been found to lack merit. Gulotta, J. P., Shapiro, Cohalan and Margett, JJ., concur.

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

— Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review so much of a determination of the respondent Secretary of State, dated December 27, 1977, as, after a hearing, found that the petitioner had demonstrated untrustworthiness and incompetency as a real estate broker under subdivision 1 of section 441-c of the Real Property Law and suspended his license as a broker for a period of six months or, in lieu thereof, imposed a fine of $1,000. Determination confirmed insofar as reviewed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, with costs. The case of Partridge v Lomenzo (37 AD2d 180), upon which petitioner relies heavily, is distinguishable on its facts. The other points urged by petitioner have been considered and have been found to lack merit. Gulotta, J. P., Shapiro, Cohalan and Margett, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 A.D.2d 690, 412 N.Y.S.2d 579, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10298, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/andersen-v-cuomo-nyappdiv-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack