Jerome Auto Sales, Inc. v. Tofany

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jerome Auto Sales, Inc. v. Tofany

41 A.D.2d 732, 341 N.Y.S.2d 868, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4834

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

DecidedMarch 26, 1973

StatusPublished

This text of 41 A.D.2d 732 (Jerome Auto Sales, Inc. v. Tofany) 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

Jerome Auto Sales, Inc. v. Tofany, 41 A.D.2d 732, 341 N.Y.S.2d 868, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4834 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of respondent Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, dated November 9,1971, suspending petitioner’s dealer and transportation registration for 30 days, unanimously annulled, on the law, and the proceeding remanded to respondent to reopen the hearing and to make and state findings upon which such administrative discipline is based, without costs and without disbursements. So far as is apparent, there having been no findings, the penalty of suspension was imposed solely upon the mere fact of falsity. This bare conclusion, without stating the basis therefor, does not afford petitioner an opportunity to challenge the ruling against it. (See Matter of Elite Dairy Prods, v. Ten Eyck, 271 N. Y. 488.) Concur — Stevens, P. J., Markewich, Nunez, Murphy and Lane, JJ.

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

Determination of respondent Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, dated November 9,1971, suspending petitioner’s dealer and transportation registration for 30 days, unanimously annulled, on the law, and the proceeding remanded to respondent to reopen the hearing and to make and state findings upon which such administrative discipline is based, without costs and without disbursements. So far as is apparent, there having been no findings, the penalty of suspension was imposed solely upon the mere fact of falsity. This bare conclusion, without stating the basis therefor, does not afford petitioner an opportunity to challenge the ruling against it. (See Matter of Elite Dairy Prods, v. Ten Eyck, 271 N. Y. 488.) Concur — Stevens, P. J., Markewich, Nunez, Murphy and Lane, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 A.D.2d 732, 341 N.Y.S.2d 868, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4834, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jerome-auto-sales-inc-v-tofany-nyappdiv-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack