Levin v. Moss

New York Supreme Court

Levin v. Moss

169 Misc. 42, 6 N.Y.S.2d 473, 1938 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1873

DecidedJune 7, 1938

StatusPublished

This text of 169 Misc. 42 (Levin v. Moss) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Levin v. Moss, 169 Misc. 42, 6 N.Y.S.2d 473, 1938 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1873 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Cotillo, J.

Subdivision a of section B32-150.0 of article 21 of title B of chapter 32 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York empowers the commissioner of licenses, upon the complaint of any person “ who claims he has been defrauded by any auctioneer,-” to revoke the license of such auctioneer if in his opinion such charge is sustained. The evidence at the hearings of the complaint against the petitioner reveals that the latter issued worthless checks to the complainant for the purchase price of certain property which he bought from the complainant. In the court’s opinion the issuance of worthless checks justified the commissioner in finding that the petitioner had defrauded the complainant. There is no requirement that the fraud authorizing the revocation of the license relate to business transacted under the auctioneer’s license. There is such a requirement in subdivision b of the same section, which deals not with fraud as such, but with “ misconduct relating to the business transacted under such auctioneer’s license.” As the evidence warranted the commissioner in finding that the petitioner had defrauded the complainant by issuing worthless checks, the motion to direct the commissioner of licenses to reinstate the petitioner’s license is denied.

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

Cotillo, J.

Subdivision a of section B32-150.0 of article 21 of title B of chapter 32 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York empowers the commissioner of licenses, upon the complaint of any person “ who claims he has been defrauded by any auctioneer,-” to revoke the license of such auctioneer if in his opinion such charge is sustained. The evidence at the hearings of the complaint against the petitioner reveals that the latter issued worthless checks to the complainant for the purchase price of certain property which he bought from the complainant. In the court’s opinion the issuance of worthless checks justified the commissioner in finding that the petitioner had defrauded the complainant. There is no requirement that the fraud authorizing the revocation of the license relate to business transacted under the auctioneer’s license. There is such a requirement in subdivision b of the same section, which deals not with fraud as such, but with “ misconduct relating to the business transacted under such auctioneer’s license.” As the evidence warranted the commissioner in finding that the petitioner had defrauded the complainant by issuing worthless checks, the motion to direct the commissioner of licenses to reinstate the petitioner’s license is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

169 Misc. 42, 6 N.Y.S.2d 473, 1938 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1873, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/levin-v-moss-nysupct-1938.