Gomez v. Kelly

New York Court of Appeals

Gomez v. Kelly

913 N.E.2d 409, 12 N.Y.3d 883

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 24, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 913 N.E.2d 409 (Gomez v. Kelly) 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

Gomez v. Kelly, 913 N.E.2d 409, 12 N.Y.3d 883 (N.Y. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order, insofar as appealed from, reversed, with costs, and petition dismissed in its entirety. We cannot say that “the penalty . . . imposed by the Commissioner shocks the judicial conscience” (Matter of Kelly v Safir, 96 NY2d 32, 40 [2001]).

Concur: Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones. Taking no part: Chief Judge Lippman.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order, insofar as appealed from, reversed, with costs, and petition dismissed in its entirety. We cannot say that “the penalty . . . imposed by the Commissioner shocks the judicial conscience” (Matter of Kelly v Safir, 96 NY2d 32, 40 [2001]).

Concur: Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones. Taking no part: Chief Judge Lippman.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

913 N.E.2d 409, 12 N.Y.3d 883, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gomez-v-kelly-ny-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack