Miller v. Board of Regents of the University of the State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Miller v. Board of Regents of the University of the State

30 A.D.2d 994, 294 N.Y.S.2d 29, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3178

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

DecidedOctober 17, 1968

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 30 A.D.2d 994 (Miller v. Board of Regents of the University of the 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

Miller v. Board of Regents of the University of the State, 30 A.D.2d 994, 294 N.Y.S.2d 29, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3178 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum by the Court.

Proceeding initiated by the petitioner pursuant to article 78 CPLR for the purpose of reviewing a determination of the respondent, dated March 28, 1968, which revoked the petitioner’s license to practice medicine. It would be a useless gesture to put in writing the history of this petitioner as set forth in. the record. To say that there is substantial evidence to sustain the charges is the most direct answer to this appeal. It is further alleged that the petitioner’s rights were violated by a refusal to grant an adjournment, but the record is replete with such adjournments. On April 19, 1967 there was an adjournment [995]*995until June 7 so that petitioner might procure counsel. At that time a further adjournment was denied as witnesses were present to testify and counsel had been previously furnished with a copy of the Grand Jury minutes. Counsel’s objection was at best tenuous. At the conclusion of the hearing a further adjournment was granted at the request of petitioner’s counsel and the next hearing did not take place until September 13, 1967. It was further called to counsel’s attention that he had the right of subpoena. A reading of this record in its entirety is convincing that the petitioner had a fair hearing and has no just cause for complaint. The penalty imposed was fully warranted. The other issues raised by the petitioner have been considered and we find them to be without merit. Determination confirmed and petition dismissed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum by the court.

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

Memorandum by the Court.

Proceeding initiated by the petitioner pursuant to article 78 CPLR for the purpose of reviewing a determination of the respondent, dated March 28, 1968, which revoked the petitioner’s license to practice medicine. It would be a useless gesture to put in writing the history of this petitioner as set forth in. the record. To say that there is substantial evidence to sustain the charges is the most direct answer to this appeal. It is further alleged that the petitioner’s rights were violated by a refusal to grant an adjournment, but the record is replete with such adjournments. On April 19, 1967 there was an adjournment [995]*995until June 7 so that petitioner might procure counsel. At that time a further adjournment was denied as witnesses were present to testify and counsel had been previously furnished with a copy of the Grand Jury minutes. Counsel’s objection was at best tenuous. At the conclusion of the hearing a further adjournment was granted at the request of petitioner’s counsel and the next hearing did not take place until September 13, 1967. It was further called to counsel’s attention that he had the right of subpoena. A reading of this record in its entirety is convincing that the petitioner had a fair hearing and has no just cause for complaint. The penalty imposed was fully warranted. The other issues raised by the petitioner have been considered and we find them to be without merit. Determination confirmed and petition dismissed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum by the court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.2d 994, 294 N.Y.S.2d 29, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3178, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-board-of-regents-of-the-university-of-the-state-nyappdiv-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack