O'Donnell v. Lomenzo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

O'Donnell v. Lomenzo

32 A.D.2d 885, 302 N.Y.S.2d 273, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3590

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

DecidedJune 27, 1969

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 32 A.D.2d 885 (O'Donnell v. Lomenzo) 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

O'Donnell v. Lomenzo, 32 A.D.2d 885, 302 N.Y.S.2d 273, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3590 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination unanimously modified on the law and facts and in the exercise of discretion by reducing the punishment to suspension of license for three months, commencing from the date of the order to be entered hereon, and as modified confirmed, without costs. Memorandum: There was substantial evidence to support respondent’s determination of “ untrustworthiness ” on the part of petitioner under subdivision 1 of section 441-e of the Real Property Law and subdivisions 5 and 6 of section 296 of the Executive Law (Matter of Diona v. Lomenzo, 26 A D 2d 473; cf. Matter of Chiaino v. Lomenzo, 26 A D 2d 469; Matter of Birch v. Lomenzo, 31 A D 2d 835). In the light of the petitioner’s hitherto unblemished record, however, and the evidence of his co-operative attitude with respect to complainant, we believe the punishment was excessive and that suspension for three months is more appropriate in this case (see Matter of Kamper v. Department of State, 26 A D 2d 697, affd. 22 N Y 2d 690; Matter of Black v. Lomenzo, 31 A D 2d 908; Matter of Birch v. Lomenzo, supra). (Review of determination revoking petitioner’s broker’s license, transferred by ordér of Erie Special Term.) Present — Del Vecehio, J. P., Witmer, Gabrielli, Bastow and Henry, JJ.

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

Determination unanimously modified on the law and facts and in the exercise of discretion by reducing the punishment to suspension of license for three months, commencing from the date of the order to be entered hereon, and as modified confirmed, without costs. Memorandum: There was substantial evidence to support respondent’s determination of “ untrustworthiness ” on the part of petitioner under subdivision 1 of section 441-e of the Real Property Law and subdivisions 5 and 6 of section 296 of the Executive Law (Matter of Diona v. Lomenzo, 26 A D 2d 473; cf. Matter of Chiaino v. Lomenzo, 26 A D 2d 469; Matter of Birch v. Lomenzo, 31 A D 2d 835). In the light of the petitioner’s hitherto unblemished record, however, and the evidence of his co-operative attitude with respect to complainant, we believe the punishment was excessive and that suspension for three months is more appropriate in this case (see Matter of Kamper v. Department of State, 26 A D 2d 697, affd. 22 N Y 2d 690; Matter of Black v. Lomenzo, 31 A D 2d 908; Matter of Birch v. Lomenzo, supra). (Review of determination revoking petitioner’s broker’s license, transferred by ordér of Erie Special Term.) Present — Del Vecehio, J. P., Witmer, Gabrielli, Bastow and Henry, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 A.D.2d 885, 302 N.Y.S.2d 273, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3590, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/odonnell-v-lomenzo-nyappdiv-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack