Mruthyunjaya v. State of New York Education Department

127 A.D.2d 881, 511 N.Y.S.2d 703, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43388
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 12, 1987
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 127 A.D.2d 881 (Mruthyunjaya v. State of New York Education Department) 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
Mruthyunjaya v. State of New York Education Department, 127 A.D.2d 881, 511 N.Y.S.2d 703, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43388 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Opinion

Kane, J.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR [882]*882article 78 (initiated in this court pursuant to Education Law § 6510 [5]) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Education which suspended petitioner Yellappa C. Mruthyunjaya’s license to practice dentistry for one year.

The determination should be confirmed. Initially, we note that contrary to petitioner Yellappa C. Mruthyunjaya’s (hereinafter petitioner) assertion, there is nothing in the record to indicate that petitioner was denied a fair hearing or otherwise prejudiced by references at the hearing to the Monroe County Dental Society’s response to Joseph Spagnolo’s complaint (see, Matter of Sroka v Ambach, 124 AD2d 873).

Petitioner’s central contention is that the evidence adduced at the hearing demonstrates that his course of treatment reflected an exercise of professional judgment and that the treatment was performed with reasonable care. However, expert testimony by respondents’ witnesses conflicts with the evidence offered by petitioner and supports the conclusion that the treatment rendered to Spagnolo by petitioner constituted gross negligence. Resolution of such factual issues are exclusively within the province of the Board of Regents (see, e.g., Matter of Rudner v Board of Regents, 105 AD2d 555, 556; see also, Matter of Di Maria v Ross, 52 NY2d 771), and, based upon the instant record, there is sufficient evidence to support respondents’ conclusion that petitioner’s guilt was established by a preponderance of the evidence. We have reviewed petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

Determination confirmed, and petition dismissed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Casey, Weiss and Levine, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Prokopiw v. Commissioner of Education
149 A.D.2d 874 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
Allen v. Board of Regents
140 A.D.2d 824 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)
Nadell v. Ambach
136 A.D.2d 804 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)
Olesh v. Ambach
134 A.D.2d 736 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
127 A.D.2d 881, 511 N.Y.S.2d 703, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43388, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mruthyunjaya-v-state-of-new-york-education-department-nyappdiv-1987.