Bloom v. New York State Department of Health

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bloom v. New York State Department of Health

301 A.D.2d 881, 752 N.Y.S.2d 923, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 366

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

DecidedJanuary 23, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 301 A.D.2d 881 (Bloom v. New York State Department of Health) 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

Bloom v. New York State Department of Health, 301 A.D.2d 881, 752 N.Y.S.2d 923, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 366 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Crew III, J.P.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (initiated in this Court pursuant to Public Health Law § 230-c [5]) to review a consent order of respondent which, inter alia, limited petitioner’s license to practice medicine.

Respondent charged petitioner with 15 specifications of professional misconduct including, inter alia, negligence, incompetence and moral unfitness. On the second day of the administrative hearing that ensued, petitioner executed a consent agreement limiting his license to practice medicine, [882]*882and respondent subsequently issued a consent order to that effect. Petitioner thereafter commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annul the subject order.

Inasmuch as the underlying order was rendered on consent, petitioner is not an aggrieved party and, hence, this proceeding does not lie (see e.g. Matter of Mastanduono v Department of Educ., 159 AD2d 752, 753). Rather, petitioner’s remedy is an application to set aside the consent order, the denial of which would be subject to our review (see Matter of Anderson v Ambach, 89 AD2d 657, 658, lv denied 57 NY2d 609). In any event, were we to consider petitioner’s various contentions, we would find them to be without merit.

Carpinello, Mugglin, Rose and Kane, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the petition is dismissed, without costs.

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

Crew III, J.P.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (initiated in this Court pursuant to Public Health Law § 230-c [5]) to review a consent order of respondent which, inter alia, limited petitioner’s license to practice medicine.

Respondent charged petitioner with 15 specifications of professional misconduct including, inter alia, negligence, incompetence and moral unfitness. On the second day of the administrative hearing that ensued, petitioner executed a consent agreement limiting his license to practice medicine, [882]*882and respondent subsequently issued a consent order to that effect. Petitioner thereafter commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annul the subject order.

Inasmuch as the underlying order was rendered on consent, petitioner is not an aggrieved party and, hence, this proceeding does not lie (see e.g. Matter of Mastanduono v Department of Educ., 159 AD2d 752, 753). Rather, petitioner’s remedy is an application to set aside the consent order, the denial of which would be subject to our review (see Matter of Anderson v Ambach, 89 AD2d 657, 658, lv denied 57 NY2d 609). In any event, were we to consider petitioner’s various contentions, we would find them to be without merit.

Carpinello, Mugglin, Rose and Kane, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the petition is dismissed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

301 A.D.2d 881, 752 N.Y.S.2d 923, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 366, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bloom-v-new-york-state-department-of-health-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack