Scire v. Board of Regents of University

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Scire v. Board of Regents of University

23 A.D.2d 943, 259 N.Y.S.2d 930, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4107

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

DecidedMay 24, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 23 A.D.2d 943 (Scire v. Board of Regents of University) 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

Scire v. Board of Regents of University, 23 A.D.2d 943, 259 N.Y.S.2d 930, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4107 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Aulisi, J.

Proceeding under article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules to review the determination of the Board of Regents revoking petitioner’s license to practice medicine. Petitioner was found guilty of “flagrant violation of the Public Health Law * * " and of the ethics and standards of the medical profession” and the proof of his large-scale dealings with, and narcotic prescriptions for drug addicts is shocking. His brief states that "no practical purpose can be served in contesting the finding of guilt and we shall address ourselves only to the question of severity of the penalty”. The question of punishment and its mitigation is primarily one for the Board of Regents. {Matter of Ray v. Board, of Regents, 9 A D 2d 560; Matter of Smigel v. Board, of Regents, 15 A D 2d 623.) We find no reason to disturb its action. Determination confirmed, and petition dismissed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Ilcrliliy, Taylor and Hamm, JJ., concur.

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

Aulisi, J.

Proceeding under article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules to review the determination of the Board of Regents revoking petitioner’s license to practice medicine. Petitioner was found guilty of “flagrant violation of the Public Health Law * * " and of the ethics and standards of the medical profession” and the proof of his large-scale dealings with, and narcotic prescriptions for drug addicts is shocking. His brief states that "no practical purpose can be served in contesting the finding of guilt and we shall address ourselves only to the question of severity of the penalty”. The question of punishment and its mitigation is primarily one for the Board of Regents. {Matter of Ray v. Board, of Regents, 9 A D 2d 560; Matter of Smigel v. Board, of Regents, 15 A D 2d 623.) We find no reason to disturb its action. Determination confirmed, and petition dismissed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Ilcrliliy, Taylor and Hamm, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A.D.2d 943, 259 N.Y.S.2d 930, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4107, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scire-v-board-of-regents-of-university-nyappdiv-1965.