Scheiner v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Scheiner v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

39 A.D.3d 286, 833 N.Y.S.2d 891

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

DecidedApril 10, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 39 A.D.3d 286 (Scheiner v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.) 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

Scheiner v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp., 39 A.D.3d 286, 833 N.Y.S.2d 891 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William A. Wetzel, J.), entered on or about July 6, 2006, which dismissed the petition seeking to annul or modify the disciplinary suspension of medical privileges, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondents’ determination was not in violation of lawful procedure or affected by an error of law, nor was it arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion (CPLR 7803 [3]). The hospital’s bylaws allowed the presence of counsel for respondent at the hearing. There is no indication that counsel performed any decision-making function at the proceedings. The bylaws also provided for the Ad Hoc Committee to determine the relevance of evidence. There is no indication that relevant evidence was erroneously precluded. The record supports the conclusion that petitioner was not deprived of his right to due process. The penalty imposed was not shocking to one’s sense of fairness (see Matter of Chen v Administrative Review Bd. of State Bd. for Professional Med. Conduct, 3 AD3d 617 [2004]). Concur—Saxe, J.P., Williams, Buckley, Catterson and Malone, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William A. Wetzel, J.), entered on or about July 6, 2006, which dismissed the petition seeking to annul or modify the disciplinary suspension of medical privileges, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondents’ determination was not in violation of lawful procedure or affected by an error of law, nor was it arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion (CPLR 7803 [3]). The hospital’s bylaws allowed the presence of counsel for respondent at the hearing. There is no indication that counsel performed any decision-making function at the proceedings. The bylaws also provided for the Ad Hoc Committee to determine the relevance of evidence. There is no indication that relevant evidence was erroneously precluded. The record supports the conclusion that petitioner was not deprived of his right to due process. The penalty imposed was not shocking to one’s sense of fairness (see Matter of Chen v Administrative Review Bd. of State Bd. for Professional Med. Conduct, 3 AD3d 617 [2004]). Concur—Saxe, J.P., Williams, Buckley, Catterson and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 A.D.3d 286, 833 N.Y.S.2d 891, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scheiner-v-new-york-city-health-hospitals-corp-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack