Maori v. Stolzenberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Maori v. Stolzenberg

269 A.D.2d 599, 704 N.Y.S.2d 820

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

DecidedFebruary 28, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 269 A.D.2d 599 (Maori v. Stolzenberg) 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

Maori v. Stolzenberg, 269 A.D.2d 599, 704 N.Y.S.2d 820 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent, Edward A. Stolzenberg as Commissioner of the Department of Hospitals Westchester County, dated January 16, 1998, which adopted the recommendation of a hearing officer, made after a hearing, finding that the petitioner was guilty of misconduct, and imposing a penalty.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the determination that he was guilty of misconduct is supported by substantial evidence (see, CPLR 7803 [4]; 300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176; Matter of Fabulous Steak House v New York State Liq. Auth., 186 AD2d 566, 567). Santucci, J. P., Altman, Luciano and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent, Edward A. Stolzenberg as Commissioner of the Department of Hospitals Westchester County, dated January 16, 1998, which adopted the recommendation of a hearing officer, made after a hearing, finding that the petitioner was guilty of misconduct, and imposing a penalty.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the determination that he was guilty of misconduct is supported by substantial evidence (see, CPLR 7803 [4]; 300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176; Matter of Fabulous Steak House v New York State Liq. Auth., 186 AD2d 566, 567). Santucci, J. P., Altman, Luciano and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 A.D.2d 599, 704 N.Y.S.2d 820, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maori-v-stolzenberg-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack