Hannon v. Cuomo

New York Court of Appeals

Hannon v. Cuomo

417 N.E.2d 1005, 52 N.Y.2d 775, 436 N.Y.S.2d 617, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2863

New York Court of Appeals·Decided December 18, 1980·Published·Cited by 11 cases

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The judgment of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

On this record, there was substantial evidence to support the respondent’s conclusion. Nor can be it said that the penalty is shocking “to one’s sense of fairness” (Matter of Butterly & Green v Lomenzo, 36 NY2d 250, 256; Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 223). It also appears that the notice and complaint served upon the appellant comported with the requirements of due process.

[777]*777Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur; Judge Gabrielli taking no part.

Judgment affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The judgment of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

On this record, there was substantial evidence to support the respondent’s conclusion. Nor can be it said that the penalty is shocking “to one’s sense of fairness” (Matter of Butterly & Green v Lomenzo, 36 NY2d 250, 256; Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 223). It also appears that the notice and complaint served upon the appellant comported with the requirements of due process.

[777]*777Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur; Judge Gabrielli taking no part.

Judgment affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Hannon v. Cuomo, 417 N.E.2d 1005, 52 N.Y.2d 775, 436 N.Y.S.2d 617, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2863 (N.Y. 1980).

Pincite

417 N.E.2d 1005 (Hannon v. Cuomo) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related