Cohen v. Board of Regents

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cohen v. Board of Regents

274 A.D. 952, 83 N.Y.S.2d 449, 1948 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4227

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

DecidedNovember 10, 1948

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 274 A.D. 952 (Cohen 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

Cohen v. Board of Regents, 274 A.D. 952, 83 N.Y.S.2d 449, 1948 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4227 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

Review, under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act, of respondent’s determination of March 25, 1948, suspending petitioner’s license to practice dentistry for the period of one year. The determination under review is based upon proof of charges that, among other things, petitioner aided and abetted an unlicensed person, one Gehlberd, to practice dentistry upon certain of respondent’s investigators by taking impressions of their mouths and fitting and adjusting therein constructed dentures. The facts, that Gehlberd was unlicensed and thus operated in petitioner’s office and in his presence, are not controverted. The statute defines the practice of dentistry as consisting, among other practices, of the following: (1) furnishing, supplying, constructing, reproducing or repairing of dentures, bridges, etc., or other structures, to be used as substitutes for natural teeth, except on the written prescription of and- by the use of impressions or easts made by a duly licensed dentist; (2) the placing of such substitutes in the mouth and/or adjusting the same. (Education Law, § 6601, subd. 2.) It may not be gainsaid but that the aforesaid uncontroverted facts as to the conduct of Gehlberd constituted practice of dentistry. The statute aforesaid plainly stamps it as such, and the discipline administered is authorized. (Education Law, § 6613, subd. 2, els. d, e.) That Gehlberd was acquitted of a misdemeanor charge based on his aforesaid conduct, as a matter of law in Court of Special Sessions, Kings County (see People v. Gehlberd, 272 App. Div. 914), has no bearing upon or relevancy to the instant matter. (Matter of Bender v. Board of Regents of Univ. of State of N. Y., 262 App. Div. 627, 631.) Determination confirmed, without costs. Heffernan, Brewster and Foster, JJ., concur; Hill, P. J., and Russell, J., dissent upon the following ground: The determination should be annulled. The criminal court wherein Gehlberd was tried and acquitted adopted the practical and just rule. The petitioner, a regularly licensed dentist, was present at all times and controlled and directed the acts of the mechanic. The latter did not go beyond the requirements of his mechanical duties. [See post, p. 1017.]

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

Review, under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act, of respondent’s determination of March 25, 1948, suspending petitioner’s license to practice dentistry for the period of one year. The determination under review is based upon proof of charges that, among other things, petitioner aided and abetted an unlicensed person, one Gehlberd, to practice dentistry upon certain of respondent’s investigators by taking impressions of their mouths and fitting and adjusting therein constructed dentures. The facts, that Gehlberd was unlicensed and thus operated in petitioner’s office and in his presence, are not controverted. The statute defines the practice of dentistry as consisting, among other practices, of the following: (1) furnishing, supplying, constructing, reproducing or repairing of dentures, bridges, etc., or other structures, to be used as substitutes for natural teeth, except on the written prescription of and- by the use of impressions or easts made by a duly licensed dentist; (2) the placing of such substitutes in the mouth and/or adjusting the same. (Education Law, § 6601, subd. 2.) It may not be gainsaid but that the aforesaid uncontroverted facts as to the conduct of Gehlberd constituted practice of dentistry. The statute aforesaid plainly stamps it as such, and the discipline administered is authorized. (Education Law, § 6613, subd. 2, els. d, e.) That Gehlberd was acquitted of a misdemeanor charge based on his aforesaid conduct, as a matter of law in Court of Special Sessions, Kings County (see People v. Gehlberd, 272 App. Div. 914), has no bearing upon or relevancy to the instant matter. (Matter of Bender v. Board of Regents of Univ. of State of N. Y., 262 App. Div. 627, 631.) Determination confirmed, without costs. Heffernan, Brewster and Foster, JJ., concur; Hill, P. J., and Russell, J., dissent upon the following ground: The determination should be annulled. The criminal court wherein Gehlberd was tried and acquitted adopted the practical and just rule. The petitioner, a regularly licensed dentist, was present at all times and controlled and directed the acts of the mechanic. The latter did not go beyond the requirements of his mechanical duties. [See post, p. 1017.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

274 A.D. 952, 83 N.Y.S.2d 449, 1948 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4227, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cohen-v-board-of-regents-nyappdiv-1948.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack