Mahshie v. Department of State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mahshie v. Department of State

192 A.D.2d 1133, 598 N.Y.S.2d 756

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

DecidedApril 14, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 192 A.D.2d 1133 (Mahshie 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

Mahshie v. Department of State, 192 A.D.2d 1133, 598 N.Y.S.2d 756 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Determination confirmed without costs and petition dismissed. All concur, Balio, J., not participating. Memorandum: In this CPLR article 78 proceeding, petitioner challenges the determination of respondent approving the determination of an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) who, after a hearing, denied petitioner’s application for renewal of his commission as a notary public. We conclude that the determination is supported by substantial evidence in the record and is not arbitrary and capricious. The ALJ properly [1134]*1134considered the factors delineated in Correction Law § 753 in determining that both the "direct relationship” and the "unreasonable risk” exceptions (Correction Law § 752 [1], [2]) apply (see, Matter of Bonacorsa v Van Lindt, 71 NY2d 605; Matter of Hughes v Shaffer, 154 AD2d 467, 468; cf., Matter of Marra v City of White Plains, 96 AD2d 17). (Article 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Mordue, J.) Present — Denman, P. J., Green, Balio, Fallon and Davis, JJ.

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

—Determination confirmed without costs and petition dismissed. All concur, Balio, J., not participating. Memorandum: In this CPLR article 78 proceeding, petitioner challenges the determination of respondent approving the determination of an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) who, after a hearing, denied petitioner’s application for renewal of his commission as a notary public. We conclude that the determination is supported by substantial evidence in the record and is not arbitrary and capricious. The ALJ properly [1134]*1134considered the factors delineated in Correction Law § 753 in determining that both the "direct relationship” and the "unreasonable risk” exceptions (Correction Law § 752 [1], [2]) apply (see, Matter of Bonacorsa v Van Lindt, 71 NY2d 605; Matter of Hughes v Shaffer, 154 AD2d 467, 468; cf., Matter of Marra v City of White Plains, 96 AD2d 17). (Article 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Mordue, J.) Present — Denman, P. J., Green, Balio, Fallon and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 A.D.2d 1133, 598 N.Y.S.2d 756, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mahshie-v-department-of-state-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack