Matter of Cameron v. Shah

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Cameron v. Shah

140 A.D.3d 439, 31 N.Y.S.3d 867

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

DecidedJune 7, 2016

Docket1375 103182/12

StatusPublished

This text of 140 A.D.3d 439 (Matter of Cameron v. Shah) 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

Matter of Cameron v. Shah, 140 A.D.3d 439, 31 N.Y.S.3d 867 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Doris Ling-Cohan, J.), entered April 24, 2015, denying the petition, inter alia, to prohibit respondents from filing disciplinary charges against petitioner in connection with his treatment of Lyme disease in five enumerated cases, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, and failed to establish the applicability of any exception to the exhaustion requirement (see CPLR 7801 [1]; Watergate II Apts. v Buffalo Sewer Auth., 46 NY2d 52, 57 [1978]). His contention that he will suffer irreparable injury in the absence of judicial intervention does not justify exempting him from the exhaustion requirement, since “[tjhere is no legally cognizable injury to be suffered solely from being subjected to the disciplinary hearing [s] with the possibility of a subsequent finding of professional misconduct” (Galin v Chassin, 217 AD2d 446, 447 [1st Dept 1995]). Petitioner also failed to establish that his challenge to the agency action as “wholly beyond its grant of power” has any “substance” (Matter of People Care Inc. v City of N.Y. Human Resources Admin., 89 AD3d 515, 516 [1st Dept 2011] [internal quotation marks omitted]).

Concur — Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Richter and Gesmer, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Doris Ling-Cohan, J.), entered April 24, 2015, denying the petition, inter alia, to prohibit respondents from filing disciplinary charges against petitioner in connection with his treatment of Lyme disease in five enumerated cases, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, and failed to establish the applicability of any exception to the exhaustion requirement (see CPLR 7801 [1]; Watergate II Apts. v Buffalo Sewer Auth., 46 NY2d 52, 57 [1978]). His contention that he will suffer irreparable injury in the absence of judicial intervention does not justify exempting him from the exhaustion requirement, since “[tjhere is no legally cognizable injury to be suffered solely from being subjected to the disciplinary hearing [s] with the possibility of a subsequent finding of professional misconduct” (Galin v Chassin, 217 AD2d 446, 447 [1st Dept 1995]). Petitioner also failed to establish that his challenge to the agency action as “wholly beyond its grant of power” has any “substance” (Matter of People Care Inc. v City of N.Y. Human Resources Admin., 89 AD3d 515, 516 [1st Dept 2011] [internal quotation marks omitted]).

Concur — Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Richter and Gesmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 A.D.3d 439, 31 N.Y.S.3d 867, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-cameron-v-shah-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack