Mascitelli v. Board of Regents

32 A.D.2d 701, 299 N.Y.S.2d 1002, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3969

This text of 32 A.D.2d 701 (Mascitelli v. Board of Regents) 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
Mascitelli v. Board of Regents, 32 A.D.2d 701, 299 N.Y.S.2d 1002, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3969 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Proceeding under CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Board .of Regents which revoked petitioner’s license to practice medicine upon finding him guilty (1) of having been convicted of a crime, within the purview of section 6514 (subd. 2, par. [b]) of the Education Law, upon his plea of guilty of assault, third degree, in satisfaction of the first and second counts of an indictment charging abortion; and (2) of performing criminal abortions, within the purview of section 6514 (subd. 2, par [e] )■ of the Education Law, upon four women. The plea was properly “regarded as an admission of some unlawful physical or medical procedure in relation to the pregnant wom[e]n named in the indictment ”, (Matter of Jones v. Allen, 4 A D 2d 994; Matter of Zimmerman v. Board of Regents, 31 A D 2d 560, mot. for lv. to app. den. 23 N Y 2d 647; Matter of Ciofalo v. Board of Regents, 23 A D 2d 926, mot. for lv. to app. den. 16 N Y 2d 481, cert. den. 382 U. S. 942.) We find no basis for petitioner’s reliance upon Spevack v. Klein (385 U. S. 511), which is in no way apposite, as authority to the contrary. The second specification -— that of performing abortions—was fully proven by the adequate and competent testimony of the four women named in the specification. We find petitioner’s contentions and assignments of error with respect thereto insubstantial and not such as to require discussion. We perceive no reason to [702]*702disturb the board’s discretion with regard to the measure of discipline imposed. Determination confirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Greenblott, JJ., concur in memorandum Per Curiam.

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

Related

Spevack v. Klein
385 U.S. 511 (Supreme Court, 1967)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
32 A.D.2d 701, 299 N.Y.S.2d 1002, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3969, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mascitelli-v-board-of-regents-nyappdiv-1969.