Matuszewski v. Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matuszewski v. Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor

37 A.D.2d 820, 324 N.Y.S.2d 997, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3271

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

DecidedOctober 19, 1971

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 37 A.D.2d 820 (Matuszewski v. Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor) 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

Matuszewski v. Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor, 37 A.D.2d 820, 324 N.Y.S.2d 997, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3271 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination dated May 20, 1971, revoking petitioner’s registration as a longshoreman, unanimously modified, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, to the extent of reducing the punishment imposed by respondent, Waterfront Commission, from revocation of the license to a suspension for a period of four months from the date of the publication of this decision and, as so modified, the determination is confirmed, without costs and without disbursements. While we find substantial evidence to confirm the respondent’s finding as to the guilt of the petitioner, in our view under all the circumstances, and considering the petitioner’s prior unblemished record, the penalty of revocation of his license was excessive and constituted an abuse of discretion. In the exercise of the power vested in this court (see Matter of Mitthauer v. Patterson, 8 N Y 2d 37; Matter of Bovino v. Scott, 22 N Y 2d 214; Matter of Handel v. Gabel, 22 A D 2d 654; CPLR 7803, subd. [3]), we conclude that the penalty should be limited as indicated above. Concur—■ Capozzoli, J. P., Markewich, Nunez, Murphy and Eager, JJ.

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

Determination dated May 20, 1971, revoking petitioner’s registration as a longshoreman, unanimously modified, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, to the extent of reducing the punishment imposed by respondent, Waterfront Commission, from revocation of the license to a suspension for a period of four months from the date of the publication of this decision and, as so modified, the determination is confirmed, without costs and without disbursements. While we find substantial evidence to confirm the respondent’s finding as to the guilt of the petitioner, in our view under all the circumstances, and considering the petitioner’s prior unblemished record, the penalty of revocation of his license was excessive and constituted an abuse of discretion. In the exercise of the power vested in this court (see Matter of Mitthauer v. Patterson, 8 N Y 2d 37; Matter of Bovino v. Scott, 22 N Y 2d 214; Matter of Handel v. Gabel, 22 A D 2d 654; CPLR 7803, subd. [3]), we conclude that the penalty should be limited as indicated above. Concur—■ Capozzoli, J. P., Markewich, Nunez, Murphy and Eager, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A.D.2d 820, 324 N.Y.S.2d 997, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3271, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matuszewski-v-waterfront-commission-of-new-york-harbor-nyappdiv-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack