Kunst v. Department of State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kunst v. Department of State

41 A.D.2d 686, 342 N.Y.S.2d 636, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5119

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

DecidedFebruary 16, 1973

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 41 A.D.2d 686 (Kunst v. Department of State) 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

Kunst v. Department of State, 41 A.D.2d 686, 342 N.Y.S.2d 636, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5119 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Petition granted and determination unanimously annulled with costs. Memorandum: The petitioner’s license as a real estate broker has been revoked pursuant to section 442-c of the Real Property Law based upon evidence that his salesman, Frawley, violated, the rules of the Department of State (19 NYCRR 175.8) by selling property subject to the exclusive listing contract of another broker. The evidence contained in the record does not support a finding that petitioner had actual knowledge of Frawley’s misconduct and no other finding was made by the hearing officer which would impose responsibility upon petitioner for his salesman’s misconduct under the statute. (Review of determination revoking broker’s licehse transferred by Order of Onondaga Special Term.) Present — Goldman, P. J., Marsh, Moule, Cardamone and Simons, JJ.

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

Petition granted and determination unanimously annulled with costs. Memorandum: The petitioner’s license as a real estate broker has been revoked pursuant to section 442-c of the Real Property Law based upon evidence that his salesman, Frawley, violated, the rules of the Department of State (19 NYCRR 175.8) by selling property subject to the exclusive listing contract of another broker. The evidence contained in the record does not support a finding that petitioner had actual knowledge of Frawley’s misconduct and no other finding was made by the hearing officer which would impose responsibility upon petitioner for his salesman’s misconduct under the statute. (Review of determination revoking broker’s licehse transferred by Order of Onondaga Special Term.) Present — Goldman, P. J., Marsh, Moule, Cardamone and Simons, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 A.D.2d 686, 342 N.Y.S.2d 636, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5119, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kunst-v-department-of-state-nyappdiv-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack