Feinberg v. Department of State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Feinberg v. Department of State

32 A.D.2d 632, 300 N.Y.S.2d 662, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3913

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

DecidedMay 22, 1969

StatusPublished

This text of 32 A.D.2d 632 (Feinberg v. Department of State) 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

Feinberg v. Department of State, 32 A.D.2d 632, 300 N.Y.S.2d 662, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3913 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of respondent, dated May 6, 1968, as amended May 13, 1968, finding petitioner guilty of untrustworthiness and incompetency and suspending Ms license for a period of one month, or, in lieu thereof, fining him $250, unanimously annulled, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the charges dismissed. [633]*633While some criticism might be expressed at the failure of the parties to have reduced to writing the alleged' understanding that the expenses for securing the mortgage in question were to be assumed by the purchaser, the failure to do so did not warrant determination by the respondent that petitioner was untrustworthy and incompetent. The present record does not contain the requisite “factual presentation concerning acts or conduct by the licensee * * * as would warrant a conclusion of unreliability, and which establishes that any confidence or reasonable expectation of fair dealing to the general public would be misplaced”. (Matter of Chiaino v. Lomenzo, 26 A D 2d 469, 472.) The proof in the record is “insufficient and insubstantial”. (Ibid. 473.) Concur—Eager, J. F., Capozzoli, Nunez, McNally and Steuer, JJ.

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

Determination of respondent, dated May 6, 1968, as amended May 13, 1968, finding petitioner guilty of untrustworthiness and incompetency and suspending Ms license for a period of one month, or, in lieu thereof, fining him $250, unanimously annulled, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the charges dismissed. [633]*633While some criticism might be expressed at the failure of the parties to have reduced to writing the alleged' understanding that the expenses for securing the mortgage in question were to be assumed by the purchaser, the failure to do so did not warrant determination by the respondent that petitioner was untrustworthy and incompetent. The present record does not contain the requisite “factual presentation concerning acts or conduct by the licensee * * * as would warrant a conclusion of unreliability, and which establishes that any confidence or reasonable expectation of fair dealing to the general public would be misplaced”. (Matter of Chiaino v. Lomenzo, 26 A D 2d 469, 472.) The proof in the record is “insufficient and insubstantial”. (Ibid. 473.) Concur—Eager, J. F., Capozzoli, Nunez, McNally and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 A.D.2d 632, 300 N.Y.S.2d 662, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3913, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/feinberg-v-department-of-state-nyappdiv-1969.