Eden v. Board of Regents

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Eden v. Board of Regents

78 A.D.2d 952, 434 N.Y.S.2d 1020, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14836

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

DecidedNovember 26, 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 78 A.D.2d 952 (Eden 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

Eden v. Board of Regents, 78 A.D.2d 952, 434 N.Y.S.2d 1020, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14836 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding "pursuant to CPLR article 78 (initiated in this court pursuant to subdivision 4 of section 6510 of the Education Law) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Education which suspended petitioner’s license to practice podiatry for a period of three months and imposed a fine of $1,000. Petitioner’s contention that the penalty imposed is disproportionate to the offense and shocking to one’s sense of fairness is without merit (Matter of Yasmer v Ambach, 78 AD2d 752; Matter of Foreman v Board of Regents of Univ. of State of N. Y., 75 AD2d 953). Petitioner’s argument that the charge committee was forced to vote charges by a member of the Education Department’s legal staff is without merit. We have examined petitioner’s other contentions and find them unpersuasive. Determination confirmed, and petition dismissed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Greenblott, Main, Mikoll and Herlihy, JJ., concur.

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

Proceeding "pursuant to CPLR article 78 (initiated in this court pursuant to subdivision 4 of section 6510 of the Education Law) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Education which suspended petitioner’s license to practice podiatry for a period of three months and imposed a fine of $1,000. Petitioner’s contention that the penalty imposed is disproportionate to the offense and shocking to one’s sense of fairness is without merit (Matter of Yasmer v Ambach, 78 AD2d 752; Matter of Foreman v Board of Regents of Univ. of State of N. Y., 75 AD2d 953). Petitioner’s argument that the charge committee was forced to vote charges by a member of the Education Department’s legal staff is without merit. We have examined petitioner’s other contentions and find them unpersuasive. Determination confirmed, and petition dismissed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Greenblott, Main, Mikoll and Herlihy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 A.D.2d 952, 434 N.Y.S.2d 1020, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14836, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eden-v-board-of-regents-nyappdiv-1979.