Bernanke v. Board of Regents

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bernanke v. Board of Regents

24 A.D.2d 910, 264 N.Y.S.2d 399, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3001

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

DecidedNovember 18, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 24 A.D.2d 910 (Bernanke v. Board of Regents) 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

Bernanke v. Board of Regents, 24 A.D.2d 910, 264 N.Y.S.2d 399, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3001 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Aulisi, J.

Proceeding under article 78 of the CPLR to review the determination of the Board of Regents which revoked petitioner’s license to practice medicine because of his issuance of numerous prescriptions for narcotic pills in violation of the Public Health Law. We see no reason to disturb the determination of the Board of Regents. Petitioner’s acts in prescribing narcotics as disclosed by the record are most culpable. The specifications drawn pursuant to sections 6514 and 6515 of the Education Law charging petitioner with fraud and deceit in the practice of medicine and unprofessional conduct are overwhelmingly sustained by the evidence. Neither, do we find any merit in petitioner’s request for a rehearing so that he could produce witnesses and records to substantiate his defense. Actually, he does not quarrel with the specifications, dispute the procedure or deny the facts and figures testified to by respondent’s witness. A rehearing was discretionary. We cannot say, on the record before us, that in denying the rehearing the Board of Regents abused its discretion. Determination confirmed, and petition dismissed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds and Hamm, JJ., concur.

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

Aulisi, J.

Proceeding under article 78 of the CPLR to review the determination of the Board of Regents which revoked petitioner’s license to practice medicine because of his issuance of numerous prescriptions for narcotic pills in violation of the Public Health Law. We see no reason to disturb the determination of the Board of Regents. Petitioner’s acts in prescribing narcotics as disclosed by the record are most culpable. The specifications drawn pursuant to sections 6514 and 6515 of the Education Law charging petitioner with fraud and deceit in the practice of medicine and unprofessional conduct are overwhelmingly sustained by the evidence. Neither, do we find any merit in petitioner’s request for a rehearing so that he could produce witnesses and records to substantiate his defense. Actually, he does not quarrel with the specifications, dispute the procedure or deny the facts and figures testified to by respondent’s witness. A rehearing was discretionary. We cannot say, on the record before us, that in denying the rehearing the Board of Regents abused its discretion. Determination confirmed, and petition dismissed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds and Hamm, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.2d 910, 264 N.Y.S.2d 399, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3001, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bernanke-v-board-of-regents-nyappdiv-1965.