Levine v. Rosenbaum

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Levine v. Rosenbaum

295 A.D.2d 123, 742 N.Y.S.2d 550, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5904

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

DecidedJune 4, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 295 A.D.2d 123 (Levine v. Rosenbaum) 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

Levine v. Rosenbaum, 295 A.D.2d 123, 742 N.Y.S.2d 550, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5904 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Determination of respondent Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, dated June 2, 2000, which revoked petitioner’s registration as an agent authorized to represent claimants in unemployment insurance proceedings, barred petitioner from representing such claimants for life and barred petitioner from representing employers for at least two years, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Bruce Allen, J.], entered May 14, 2001), dismissed, without costs.

Substantial evidence, including the testimony of the claimant and petitioner, as well as a letter from petitioner to the claimant stating what her fee would be for her services, established that petitioner demanded and accepted a fee from a claimant without prior Board approval in violation of Labor Law § 538 and 12 NYCRR 460.6 (d) and that petitioner lied to respondent Board about her receipt of the fee and then pressured the claimant to allow her to keep the fee, even after the Board had approved a lower fee, in violation of 12 NYCRR 460.5 (c) (5) (i) and (ii) (b). No basis exists to disturb the Board’s findings of credibility (see, Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443-444). The penalty imposed was not so disproportionate to the offenses as to shock our sense of fairness (see, Matter of Kelly v Safir, 96 NY2d 32, 38).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Rosenberger, Wallach and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Determination of respondent Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, dated June 2, 2000, which revoked petitioner’s registration as an agent authorized to represent claimants in unemployment insurance proceedings, barred petitioner from representing such claimants for life and barred petitioner from representing employers for at least two years, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Bruce Allen, J.], entered May 14, 2001), dismissed, without costs.

Substantial evidence, including the testimony of the claimant and petitioner, as well as a letter from petitioner to the claimant stating what her fee would be for her services, established that petitioner demanded and accepted a fee from a claimant without prior Board approval in violation of Labor Law § 538 and 12 NYCRR 460.6 (d) and that petitioner lied to respondent Board about her receipt of the fee and then pressured the claimant to allow her to keep the fee, even after the Board had approved a lower fee, in violation of 12 NYCRR 460.5 (c) (5) (i) and (ii) (b). No basis exists to disturb the Board’s findings of credibility (see, Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443-444). The penalty imposed was not so disproportionate to the offenses as to shock our sense of fairness (see, Matter of Kelly v Safir, 96 NY2d 32, 38).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Rosenberger, Wallach and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 A.D.2d 123, 742 N.Y.S.2d 550, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5904, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/levine-v-rosenbaum-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack