Lo Curto v. Ambach

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lo Curto v. Ambach

79 A.D.2d 776, 435 N.Y.S.2d 200, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14174

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

DecidedDecember 18, 1980

StatusPublished

This text of 79 A.D.2d 776 (Lo Curto v. Ambach) 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

Lo Curto v. Ambach, 79 A.D.2d 776, 435 N.Y.S.2d 200, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14174 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, initiated in this court pursuant to subdivision 4 of section 6510 of the Education Law, to review determinations of the Board of Regents which (1) revoked petitioner Robert J. Lo Curto’s license to practice pharmacy, and (2) revoked the certificate of registration issued to petitioner Robert J. Lo Curto, Inc., to conduct a retail pharmacy in the State of New York. Petitioners’ contention that the penalty imposed is disproportionate to the offense and shocking to one’s sense of fairness is without merit. Determinations confirmed, and petition dismissed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Sweeney, Kane, Casey and Herlihy, JJ., concur.

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

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, initiated in this court pursuant to subdivision 4 of section 6510 of the Education Law, to review determinations of the Board of Regents which (1) revoked petitioner Robert J. Lo Curto’s license to practice pharmacy, and (2) revoked the certificate of registration issued to petitioner Robert J. Lo Curto, Inc., to conduct a retail pharmacy in the State of New York. Petitioners’ contention that the penalty imposed is disproportionate to the offense and shocking to one’s sense of fairness is without merit. Determinations confirmed, and petition dismissed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Sweeney, Kane, Casey and Herlihy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 A.D.2d 776, 435 N.Y.S.2d 200, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14174, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lo-curto-v-ambach-nyappdiv-1980.