Hannon v. Cuomo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hannon v. Cuomo

72 A.D.2d 914, 423 N.Y.S.2d 459, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14217

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

DecidedNovember 16, 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 72 A.D.2d 914 (Hannon v. Cuomo) 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

Hannon v. Cuomo, 72 A.D.2d 914, 423 N.Y.S.2d 459, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14217 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

—Determination unanimously modified and, as modified, confirmed, without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: Respondent found petitioner guilty of untrustworthiness and incompetency because he submitted a purchase offer to his client, the seller, with actual knowledge that the signature on it was not that of the prospective buyer and because he accepted a down payment of $4,000 from the buyer when the purchase offer required a down payment of $5,000. We find no substantial evidence to support the charge that he submitted a forged purchase offer, and we grant the petition to the extent of striking that finding and therefore reduce the punishment imposed from suspension for three months to censure. The determination is confirmed in all other respects. (Article 78 proceeding transferred by order of Erie Supreme Court.) Present—Simons, J. P., Hancock, Jr., Schnepp, Doerr and Moule, JJ.

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

—Determination unanimously modified and, as modified, confirmed, without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: Respondent found petitioner guilty of untrustworthiness and incompetency because he submitted a purchase offer to his client, the seller, with actual knowledge that the signature on it was not that of the prospective buyer and because he accepted a down payment of $4,000 from the buyer when the purchase offer required a down payment of $5,000. We find no substantial evidence to support the charge that he submitted a forged purchase offer, and we grant the petition to the extent of striking that finding and therefore reduce the punishment imposed from suspension for three months to censure. The determination is confirmed in all other respects. (Article 78 proceeding transferred by order of Erie Supreme Court.) Present—Simons, J. P., Hancock, Jr., Schnepp, Doerr and Moule, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 A.D.2d 914, 423 N.Y.S.2d 459, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14217, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hannon-v-cuomo-nyappdiv-1979.