Liebowitz v. Lowery

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Liebowitz v. Lowery

31 A.D.2d 925, 299 N.Y.S.2d 615, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4312

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

DecidedMarch 31, 1969

StatusPublished

This text of 31 A.D.2d 925 (Liebowitz v. Lowery) 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

Liebowitz v. Lowery, 31 A.D.2d 925, 299 N.Y.S.2d 615, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4312 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of respondent Fire Commissioner unanimously annulled, on the law, as to charge numbered 3 and as to the penalty of dismissal imposed upon the finding of guilt of charge numbered 1, specification (e) .thereof, and otherwise confirmed, without costs and without disbursements, and the proceeding remanded to respondent for imposition of an appropriate penalty. As to charge 3, respondent concedes that petitioner’s refusal to waive immunity before the Grand Jury does not provide a basis for dismissal (Gardner v. Broderick, 392 U. S. 273). As to the remaining charge, we find substantial evidence in the record for the finding of guilt in petitioner’s having accepted a card at Christmas, exchangeable for a bottle of liquor, obviously emanating from a business concern whose premises it was petitioner’s duty to inspect. We are of the opinion, however, that guilt of this sole remaining charge does not warrant the imposition of the severe penalty of dismissal (Matter of Murray v. Murphy, 24 N Y 2d 150). Concur— Stevens, P. J., Eager, Tilzer, McGivern and Markewich, JJ.

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

Determination of respondent Fire Commissioner unanimously annulled, on the law, as to charge numbered 3 and as to the penalty of dismissal imposed upon the finding of guilt of charge numbered 1, specification (e) .thereof, and otherwise confirmed, without costs and without disbursements, and the proceeding remanded to respondent for imposition of an appropriate penalty. As to charge 3, respondent concedes that petitioner’s refusal to waive immunity before the Grand Jury does not provide a basis for dismissal (Gardner v. Broderick, 392 U. S. 273). As to the remaining charge, we find substantial evidence in the record for the finding of guilt in petitioner’s having accepted a card at Christmas, exchangeable for a bottle of liquor, obviously emanating from a business concern whose premises it was petitioner’s duty to inspect. We are of the opinion, however, that guilt of this sole remaining charge does not warrant the imposition of the severe penalty of dismissal (Matter of Murray v. Murphy, 24 N Y 2d 150). Concur— Stevens, P. J., Eager, Tilzer, McGivern and Markewich, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 A.D.2d 925, 299 N.Y.S.2d 615, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4312, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/liebowitz-v-lowery-nyappdiv-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack