Pond v. Lomenzo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pond v. Lomenzo

32 A.D.2d 887, 302 N.Y.S.2d 158, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3595

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

DecidedJune 27, 1969

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 32 A.D.2d 887 (Pond 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

Pond v. Lomenzo, 32 A.D.2d 887, 302 N.Y.S.2d 158, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3595 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination unanimously annulled, with costs, and the Secretary of State directed to issue a renewal of petitioner’s barber operator license. Memorandum: In this article 78 proceeding petitioner seeks to vacate and annul an order of the Secretary of State denying petitioner’s application for renewal of his barber operator license. While section 441 of the General Business Law provides that a license [888]*888may be revoked for “ Habitual drunkenness ” (subd. 3) or “ Conviction of any crime or offense involving moral turpitude ” (subd. 9) the ultimate fact to be found to warrant revocation is that the licensee is not of sufficiently good moral character to demonstrate his fitness to engage in the practice of barbering. From an examination of the entire record it would appear there is insufficient substantial evidence to sustain such a finding. (See Matter of Chiaino v. Lomenzo, 26 A D 2d 469, 473.) (Review of determination denying application for renewal of barber's license.) Present—■ Goldman, P. J., Del Vecchio, Marsh, Gabrielli and Moule, JJ.

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

Determination unanimously annulled, with costs, and the Secretary of State directed to issue a renewal of petitioner’s barber operator license. Memorandum: In this article 78 proceeding petitioner seeks to vacate and annul an order of the Secretary of State denying petitioner’s application for renewal of his barber operator license. While section 441 of the General Business Law provides that a license [888]*888may be revoked for “ Habitual drunkenness ” (subd. 3) or “ Conviction of any crime or offense involving moral turpitude ” (subd. 9) the ultimate fact to be found to warrant revocation is that the licensee is not of sufficiently good moral character to demonstrate his fitness to engage in the practice of barbering. From an examination of the entire record it would appear there is insufficient substantial evidence to sustain such a finding. (See Matter of Chiaino v. Lomenzo, 26 A D 2d 469, 473.) (Review of determination denying application for renewal of barber's license.) Present—■ Goldman, P. J., Del Vecchio, Marsh, Gabrielli and Moule, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 A.D.2d 887, 302 N.Y.S.2d 158, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3595, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pond-v-lomenzo-nyappdiv-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack