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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 25, 1997·Published

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.

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

237 A.D.2d 202 (Piasecki v. Department of Health) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related