Cohen v. New York State Board of Pharmacy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cohen v. New York State Board of Pharmacy

27 A.D.2d 633, 275 N.Y.S.2d 860, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2712

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

DecidedDecember 30, 1966

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 27 A.D.2d 633 (Cohen v. New York State Board of Pharmacy) 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. New York State Board of Pharmacy, 27 A.D.2d 633, 275 N.Y.S.2d 860, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2712 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Aulisi, J.

In this article 78 proceeding, the petitioner, a supervising pharmacist of a pharmacy owned by nonpharmaeists, seeks review of a determination of the State Board of Pharmacy that he was guilty of certain violations of article 137 of the Education Law (Pharmacy) and imposing a penalty of $100. Even without knowledge a supervising pharmacist fails in his responsibility by not properly performing the duties of his position as we held in Matter of Bernstein v. Allen (26 A D 2d 727) and Matter of Cassell v. Allen (27 A D 2d 597) which mandates confirmation. We find no reason to disturb the finding of the respondent. Determination confirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Staley, Jr., and Brink, JJ., concur with Aulisi, J.

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

Aulisi, J.

In this article 78 proceeding, the petitioner, a supervising pharmacist of a pharmacy owned by nonpharmaeists, seeks review of a determination of the State Board of Pharmacy that he was guilty of certain violations of article 137 of the Education Law (Pharmacy) and imposing a penalty of $100. Even without knowledge a supervising pharmacist fails in his responsibility by not properly performing the duties of his position as we held in Matter of Bernstein v. Allen (26 A D 2d 727) and Matter of Cassell v. Allen (27 A D 2d 597) which mandates confirmation. We find no reason to disturb the finding of the respondent. Determination confirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Staley, Jr., and Brink, JJ., concur with Aulisi, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.2d 633, 275 N.Y.S.2d 860, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2712, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cohen-v-new-york-state-board-of-pharmacy-nyappdiv-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack