Hashinsky v. Nyquist

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hashinsky v. Nyquist

50 A.D.2d 1024, 376 N.Y.S.2d 709, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12193

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

DecidedDecember 23, 1975

StatusPublished

This text of 50 A.D.2d 1024 (Hashinsky v. Nyquist) 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

Hashinsky v. Nyquist, 50 A.D.2d 1024, 376 N.Y.S.2d 709, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12193 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

— Proceeding initiated in this court, pursuant to subdivision 4 of section 6510. of the Education Law, to review an order of the Commissioner of Education revoking petitioner’s license to practice pharmacy upon finding him guilty of practicing the profession fraudulently and of unprofessional conduct. The record contains evidence that petitioner misappropriated some $8,000 during his employment as a pharmacist. At the hearing held herein there were some factual issues which were primarily issues of credibility. The determination is supported by substantial evidence and the petitioner’s contentions that a confession written and signed by him was inadmissible and that he was denied due process are without merit. His further contention that the charges were in violation "of State and Federal Labor Laws” is without merit and, in any event, was not raised during the administrative proceedings. Determination confirmed, and petition dismissed, without costs. Herlihy, P. J., Sweeney, Kane, Koreman and Larkin, JJ., concur.

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

— Proceeding initiated in this court, pursuant to subdivision 4 of section 6510. of the Education Law, to review an order of the Commissioner of Education revoking petitioner’s license to practice pharmacy upon finding him guilty of practicing the profession fraudulently and of unprofessional conduct. The record contains evidence that petitioner misappropriated some $8,000 during his employment as a pharmacist. At the hearing held herein there were some factual issues which were primarily issues of credibility. The determination is supported by substantial evidence and the petitioner’s contentions that a confession written and signed by him was inadmissible and that he was denied due process are without merit. His further contention that the charges were in violation "of State and Federal Labor Laws” is without merit and, in any event, was not raised during the administrative proceedings. Determination confirmed, and petition dismissed, without costs. Herlihy, P. J., Sweeney, Kane, Koreman and Larkin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 A.D.2d 1024, 376 N.Y.S.2d 709, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12193, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hashinsky-v-nyquist-nyappdiv-1975.