In re Kasha

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Kasha

264 A.D. 925, 36 N.Y.S.2d 19, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5399

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

DecidedJuly 1, 1942

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 264 A.D. 925 (In re Kasha) 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

In re Kasha, 264 A.D. 925, 36 N.Y.S.2d 19, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5399 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

This is a review under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act, of an order and determination of the Board of Regents revoking the license of petitioner to practice medicine and canceling his registration as a physician. Petitioner was charged with undertaking to procure and perform a criminal abortion and with fraud and deceit in that he permitted an unlicensed person to practice medicine in his office. The Board of Regents have found petitioner guilty of both charges. There is substantial evidence to sustain the findings of the Board, and we cannot say that the latter acted arbitrarily. Any technical errors that were committed were not of such a serious nature as to impair petitioner’s substantial rights. Determination and order confirmed, without costs. Bliss, Hefíernan, Schenck and Foster, JJ., concur; Hill, P. J., dissents.

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

This is a review under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act, of an order and determination of the Board of Regents revoking the license of petitioner to practice medicine and canceling his registration as a physician. Petitioner was charged with undertaking to procure and perform a criminal abortion and with fraud and deceit in that he permitted an unlicensed person to practice medicine in his office. The Board of Regents have found petitioner guilty of both charges. There is substantial evidence to sustain the findings of the Board, and we cannot say that the latter acted arbitrarily. Any technical errors that were committed were not of such a serious nature as to impair petitioner’s substantial rights. Determination and order confirmed, without costs. Bliss, Hefíernan, Schenck and Foster, JJ., concur; Hill, P. J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 A.D. 925, 36 N.Y.S.2d 19, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5399, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-kasha-nyappdiv-1942.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack