Goldberg v. Cortez-Vasquez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Goldberg v. Cortez-Vasquez

94 A.D.3d 531, 942 N.Y.S.2d 335

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

DecidedApril 12, 2012

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 94 A.D.3d 531 (Goldberg v. Cortez-Vasquez) 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

Goldberg v. Cortez-Vasquez, 94 A.D.3d 531, 942 N.Y.S.2d 335 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of respondent, dated March 11, 2010, which revoked petitioner’s real estate broker’s license and notary commission, and directed that no action be taken to restore the license until petitioner demonstrated that she had refunded the sum of $10,475, plus statutory interest from November 28, 2006, to the seller, Julio Alejandro, Jr., unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Michael D. Stallman, J.], entered January 11, 2011) dismissed, without costs.

[532]*532Respondent’s finding that petitioner participated in a scheme in a real estate transaction which defrauded the mortgage lender by making it appear that a deposit was paid by the purchaser, when none was provided, was supported by substantial evidence in the record (see generally 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180-181 [1978]). To the extent petitioner argues that the witnesses against her were incredible because they were involved in the deception, we defer to the credibility findings of the administrative law judge (see Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443 [1987]). The penalty imposed is not disproportionate and does not shock the conscience (see Matter of Featherstone v Franco, 95 NY2d 550 [2000]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Catterson, DeGrasse and Román, JJ.

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

Determination of respondent, dated March 11, 2010, which revoked petitioner’s real estate broker’s license and notary commission, and directed that no action be taken to restore the license until petitioner demonstrated that she had refunded the sum of $10,475, plus statutory interest from November 28, 2006, to the seller, Julio Alejandro, Jr., unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Michael D. Stallman, J.], entered January 11, 2011) dismissed, without costs.

[532]*532Respondent’s finding that petitioner participated in a scheme in a real estate transaction which defrauded the mortgage lender by making it appear that a deposit was paid by the purchaser, when none was provided, was supported by substantial evidence in the record (see generally 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180-181 [1978]). To the extent petitioner argues that the witnesses against her were incredible because they were involved in the deception, we defer to the credibility findings of the administrative law judge (see Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443 [1987]). The penalty imposed is not disproportionate and does not shock the conscience (see Matter of Featherstone v Franco, 95 NY2d 550 [2000]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Catterson, DeGrasse and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

94 A.D.3d 531, 942 N.Y.S.2d 335, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldberg-v-cortez-vasquez-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack