Frooks v. Adams

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Frooks v. Adams

214 A.D.2d 615, 624 N.Y.S.2d 964, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4065

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

DecidedApril 10, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 214 A.D.2d 615 (Frooks v. Adams) 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

Frooks v. Adams, 214 A.D.2d 615, 624 N.Y.S.2d 964, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4065 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus to compel the Office of Professional Discipline of the New York State Education Department to further investigate and to prosecute a complaint alleging professional misconduct against Vincent F. Nyberg, a licensed engineer and architect, the petitioner appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Scarpino, J.), entered November 30, 1993, which, upon granting the respondent’s motion to dismiss the proceeding, dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The respondent investigated the petitioner’s complaint pursuant to the requirements set forth in Education Law § 6510 (1) (b). Its determination that no violations had occurred is a discretionary one for which review in a proceeding in the nature of mandamus is unavailable (see, Matter of Mullen v Axelrod, 74 NY2d 580). Sullivan, J. P., Copertino, Pizzuto and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus to compel the Office of Professional Discipline of the New York State Education Department to further investigate and to prosecute a complaint alleging professional misconduct against Vincent F. Nyberg, a licensed engineer and architect, the petitioner appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Scarpino, J.), entered November 30, 1993, which, upon granting the respondent’s motion to dismiss the proceeding, dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The respondent investigated the petitioner’s complaint pursuant to the requirements set forth in Education Law § 6510 (1) (b). Its determination that no violations had occurred is a discretionary one for which review in a proceeding in the nature of mandamus is unavailable (see, Matter of Mullen v Axelrod, 74 NY2d 580). Sullivan, J. P., Copertino, Pizzuto and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

214 A.D.2d 615, 624 N.Y.S.2d 964, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4065, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frooks-v-adams-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack