Harvey v. Shaffer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Harvey v. Shaffer

156 A.D.2d 1013, 549 N.Y.S.2d 296, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16223

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

DecidedDecember 20, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 156 A.D.2d 1013 (Harvey v. Shaffer) 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

Harvey v. Shaffer, 156 A.D.2d 1013, 549 N.Y.S.2d 296, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16223 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination unanimously confirmed and petition dismissed without costs. Memorandum: The determination that petitioner, a real estate broker, engaged in a fraudulent practice (see, Real Property Law § 441-c [1]) is supported by substantial evidence. The record supports the finding of the Administrative Law Judge, adopted by the Secretary of State, that petitioner showed prospective buyers of a subdivision lot a plat map indicating that certain improvements would be provided by the developer when petitioner should reasonably have known that these amenities would not be provided. (Article 78 proceeding transferred by order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Rosenbloom, J.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Green, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

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

Determination unanimously confirmed and petition dismissed without costs. Memorandum: The determination that petitioner, a real estate broker, engaged in a fraudulent practice (see, Real Property Law § 441-c [1]) is supported by substantial evidence. The record supports the finding of the Administrative Law Judge, adopted by the Secretary of State, that petitioner showed prospective buyers of a subdivision lot a plat map indicating that certain improvements would be provided by the developer when petitioner should reasonably have known that these amenities would not be provided. (Article 78 proceeding transferred by order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Rosenbloom, J.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Green, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

156 A.D.2d 1013, 549 N.Y.S.2d 296, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16223, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harvey-v-shaffer-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack