Born Again Salvage Corp. v. Ratner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Born Again Salvage Corp. v. Ratner

88 A.D.2d 943, 451 N.Y.S.2d 1020, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17298

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

DecidedJune 14, 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 88 A.D.2d 943 (Born Again Salvage Corp. v. Ratner) 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

Born Again Salvage Corp. v. Ratner, 88 A.D.2d 943, 451 N.Y.S.2d 1020, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17298 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

— Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Commissioner of the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs, dated July 17, 1981, which, after a hearing, found petitioner guilty of violating certain regulations, imposed a total of $1,750 in fines and revoked its license. Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements. The determination is supported by substantial evidence (see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc, v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176). Furthermore, the penalty imposed was not so disproportionate to the offenses as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness (see Matter of Pell v Board ofEduc., 34 NY2d 222). Weinstein, J. P., Gulotta, O’Connor and Rubin, 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 a determination of the respondent Commissioner of the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs, dated July 17, 1981, which, after a hearing, found petitioner guilty of violating certain regulations, imposed a total of $1,750 in fines and revoked its license. Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements. The determination is supported by substantial evidence (see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc, v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176). Furthermore, the penalty imposed was not so disproportionate to the offenses as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness (see Matter of Pell v Board ofEduc., 34 NY2d 222). Weinstein, J. P., Gulotta, O’Connor and Rubin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 A.D.2d 943, 451 N.Y.S.2d 1020, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17298, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/born-again-salvage-corp-v-ratner-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack