Ginsberg v. Commonwealth, Department of State

422 A.2d 1239, 55 Pa. Commw. 255, 1980 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1885
CourtCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedDecember 11, 1980
DocketAppeal, No. 46 C.D. 1980
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 422 A.2d 1239 (Ginsberg v. Commonwealth, Department of State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ginsberg v. Commonwealth, Department of State, 422 A.2d 1239, 55 Pa. Commw. 255, 1980 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1885 (Pa. Ct. App. 1980).

Opinion

Opinion by

Judge MacPhail,

This is an appeal by Samuel B. Ginsberg (Petitioner) from an Adjudication and Order of the Pennsylvania State Real Estate Commission (Commission) dated December 10, 1979 revoking Petitioner’s license as a. real estate broker pursuant to Section 10(a)(1), (3), (7), and 11(b) of the Real Estate Brokers License' Act (Act).1

On September 25, 1978 the Petitioner pled guilty in the United States District Court, Eastern District [257]*257of Pennsylvania, to twelve counts of submitting false statements to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1010 and one count of conspiracy in violation of 18 [258]*258IT.S.C. §371. These crimes were committed in his capacity as a real estate broker and are within the scope of Section 11(b) of the Act.

At the hearing before the Commission, the Commonwealth produced as evidence a certified copy of Petitioner’s guilty plea. Petitioner was given an opportunity to challenge the validity of the Commonwealth evidence. Petitioner’s license was revoked. Petitioner filed a Petition for Review with this Court.

Petitioner alleges that he was denied due process in the revocation of his license pursuant to the statutory provision mandating such revocation when the licensee has been convicted or has pled guilty to one or more of the crimes described therein. We disagree.

This case is factually similar to and is clearly controlled by our decision in Meth v. Commonwealth State Real Estate Commission, 14 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 203, 321 A.2d 221 (1974). In that case, the Commission relied on nolo contendere pleas in the Federal Court in revoking two real estate brokers licenses. The brokers argued that they had been denied due process. In refuting this argument, Judge Crumlish (now President Judge Crumlish) said, “we find it clear that the Commission has no duty to look beyond the nolo contendere plea to determine the substance of the allegations. Once a plea to offenses outlined in Section 11(b) has been taken, Appellants are at that moment in violation. ’ ’ Id. at 207, 321 A.2d at 223.

Accordingly, the order of the Commission revoking Petitioner’s broker’s license is affirmed.

' Order

And Now, this 11th day of December, 1980, the order of the Pennsylvania State Real Estate Com[259]*259mission, dated December 10, 1979, revoking the real estate brokers license of Samuel B. Ginsberg is affirmed.

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

Related

Schoenhut v. Commonwealth, State Real Estate Commission
455 A.2d 225 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
422 A.2d 1239, 55 Pa. Commw. 255, 1980 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1885, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ginsberg-v-commonwealth-department-of-state-pacommwct-1980.