Epstein v. Board of Regents of the University

New York Court of Appeals

Epstein v. Board of Regents of the University

65 N.E.2d 756, 295 N.Y. 154, 1946 N.Y. LEXIS 851

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 25, 1946

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 65 N.E.2d 756 (Epstein v. Board of Regents of the University) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Epstein v. Board of Regents of the University, 65 N.E.2d 756, 295 N.Y. 154, 1946 N.Y. LEXIS 851 (N.Y. 1946).

Pincite

Opinion

Medaue, J.

.On proceedings before its Grievance Committee, the Board of Regents revoked Dr. Epstein’s license to practice *157 medicine for agreeing to perform abortions. The Appellate Division annulled the determination and remitted the matter to the board for further proceedings (267 App. Div. 27). New findings were made without a new hearing and again the Appellate Division reversed. One ground of reversal was that the two women who testified against the doctor were employed by the Medical Grievance Committee as paid investigators and that, like private detectives in divorce cases, they require corroboration of which there was none. The other ground was that the chairman of the committee which conducted the hearing, on his own motion, refused to permit an "inquiry as to what else one of the witnesses did for a living. Her employment by the Board of Regents was occasional. Where corroboration of private detectives is taken in divorce cases (Winston v. Winston, 165 N. Y. 553; Yates v. Yates, 211 N. Y. 163; Moller v. Moller, 115 N. Y. 466) it is because of a generally accepted suspicion which does not apply to public employees (Cullinan v. Trolley Club, 65 App. Div. 202; Farley v. Bronx Bath & Hotel Co., 163 App. Div. 459). No corroboration was required here and the evidence of the two women investigators was sufficient. Discretion permitted the exclusion of the inquiry as to what other work one of the witnesses did. In any event, there was adequate opportunity to inquire as to the facts testified to by the two investigators. Under Education Law, section 1265, subdivision 5, the committee on grievances is not bound by the laws of evidence in the conduct of its proceedings. All that is required is that “ the determination shall be founded upon sufficient legal evidence to sustain the same.” That is the case here.

The stipulation for order absolute was validly given. (Matter of Weinstein v. Board of Regents, 292 N. Y. 589.)

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the determination of the State Board of Regents confirmed, without costs.

Loughran, Qh. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Thacher and Dye, JJ., concur.

Ordered accordingly.

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

Medaue, J.

.On proceedings before its Grievance Committee, the Board of Regents revoked Dr. Epstein’s license to practice *157 medicine for agreeing to perform abortions. The Appellate Division annulled the determination and remitted the matter to the board for further proceedings (267 App. Div. 27). New findings were made without a new hearing and again the Appellate Division reversed. One ground of reversal was that the two women who testified against the doctor were employed by the Medical Grievance Committee as paid investigators and that, like private detectives in divorce cases, they require corroboration of which there was none. The other ground was that the chairman of the committee which conducted the hearing, on his own motion, refused to permit an "inquiry as to what else one of the witnesses did for a living. Her employment by the Board of Regents was occasional. Where corroboration of private detectives is taken in divorce cases (Winston v. Winston, 165 N. Y. 553; Yates v. Yates, 211 N. Y. 163; Moller v. Moller, 115 N. Y. 466) it is because of a generally accepted suspicion which does not apply to public employees (Cullinan v. Trolley Club, 65 App. Div. 202; Farley v. Bronx Bath & Hotel Co., 163 App. Div. 459). No corroboration was required here and the evidence of the two women investigators was sufficient. Discretion permitted the exclusion of the inquiry as to what other work one of the witnesses did. In any event, there was adequate opportunity to inquire as to the facts testified to by the two investigators. Under Education Law, section 1265, subdivision 5, the committee on grievances is not bound by the laws of evidence in the conduct of its proceedings. All that is required is that “ the determination shall be founded upon sufficient legal evidence to sustain the same.” That is the case here.

The stipulation for order absolute was validly given. (Matter of Weinstein v. Board of Regents, 292 N. Y. 589.)

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the determination of the State Board of Regents confirmed, without costs.

Loughran, Qh. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Thacher and Dye, JJ., concur.

Ordered accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 N.E.2d 756, 295 N.Y. 154, 1946 N.Y. LEXIS 851, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/epstein-v-board-of-regents-of-the-university-ny-1946.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack