Piasecki v. Department of Health

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Piasecki v. Department of Health

237 A.D.2d 202, 655 N.Y.S.2d 934, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2776

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

DecidedMarch 25, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 237 A.D.2d 202 (Piasecki v. Department of Health) 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

Piasecki v. Department of Health, 237 A.D.2d 202, 655 N.Y.S.2d 934, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2776 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.), entered November 4, 1996, which denied petitioner’s application for a writ of prohibition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner’s application for a stay of the scheduled hearing and dismissal of the charges against her filed by respondent was properly denied on the ground that the timeliness of respondent’s filing of the charges is a question that should not be judicially reviewed before there has been a final administrative determination adverse to petitioner (Doe v Office of Professional Med. Conduct, 188 AD2d 347, 347-348, mod on other grounds 81 NY2d 1050; Matter of Wildman v Axelrod, 106 AD2d 875). Contrary to petitioner’s contention, Public Health Law § 230 (10) does not specify any particular time within which respondent must file its charges such as would entitle a licensee to the prohibition-type relief under paragraph (j). Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Nardelli, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.), entered November 4, 1996, which denied petitioner’s application for a writ of prohibition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner’s application for a stay of the scheduled hearing and dismissal of the charges against her filed by respondent was properly denied on the ground that the timeliness of respondent’s filing of the charges is a question that should not be judicially reviewed before there has been a final administrative determination adverse to petitioner (Doe v Office of Professional Med. Conduct, 188 AD2d 347, 347-348, mod on other grounds 81 NY2d 1050; Matter of Wildman v Axelrod, 106 AD2d 875). Contrary to petitioner’s contention, Public Health Law § 230 (10) does not specify any particular time within which respondent must file its charges such as would entitle a licensee to the prohibition-type relief under paragraph (j). Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Nardelli, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

237 A.D.2d 202, 655 N.Y.S.2d 934, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2776, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/piasecki-v-department-of-health-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack