King v. Hults

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

King v. Hults

19 A.D.2d 681, 241 N.Y.S.2d 4, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3493

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

DecidedJune 27, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 19 A.D.2d 681 (King v. Hults) 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

King v. Hults, 19 A.D.2d 681, 241 N.Y.S.2d 4, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3493 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Upon the prior appeal (16 A D 2d 1007) we found that there was “ proof of several transactions of Espinosa and Benitez with petitioner which, if credited, would warrant findings of misconduct” but we were compelled to remit, holding that since the Commissioner made no factual findings it was “impossible to determine which of the acts testified to were considered to have been established ”. The record developed upon remittal and now before us contains adequate findings of repeated acts of misconduct, amply supported by proof which the Commissioner was entitled to, and specifically did find credible and which he was also justified in finding so serious as to warrant petitioner’s dismissal. Determination confirmed, without costs. Present — Coon, J. P., Gibson, Herlihy, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ.

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

Upon the prior appeal (16 A D 2d 1007) we found that there was “ proof of several transactions of Espinosa and Benitez with petitioner which, if credited, would warrant findings of misconduct” but we were compelled to remit, holding that since the Commissioner made no factual findings it was “impossible to determine which of the acts testified to were considered to have been established ”. The record developed upon remittal and now before us contains adequate findings of repeated acts of misconduct, amply supported by proof which the Commissioner was entitled to, and specifically did find credible and which he was also justified in finding so serious as to warrant petitioner’s dismissal. Determination confirmed, without costs. Present — Coon, J. P., Gibson, Herlihy, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.2d 681, 241 N.Y.S.2d 4, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3493, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/king-v-hults-nyappdiv-1963.