Silberstang v. Lomenzo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Silberstang v. Lomenzo

37 A.D.2d 826, 325 N.Y.S.2d 297, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3198

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

DecidedOctober 26, 1971

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 37 A.D.2d 826 (Silberstang 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

Silberstang v. Lomenzo, 37 A.D.2d 826, 325 N.Y.S.2d 297, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3198 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of respondent, Secretary of State, dated December 23, 1969, in part revoking the real estate broker’s license of petitioner, Louis Silberstang, for untrustworthiness (Real Property Law, § 441-e), unanimously modified, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, to the extent of reducing the penalty imposed to a six months’ suspension of the license, commencing from the date of the order to be entered herein and, as so modified, the determination is otherwise confirmed, [827]*827without costs and without disbursements. The determination that petitioner, Louis Silberstang, failed to supervise his licensed salesmen is supported by substantial evidence. However, in our opinion, on this record, the sanction of revocation imposed was excessive and unduly disproportionate to the offense. A suspension for a period of six months would be more appropriate (Matter of Perlstein v. Lomenzo, 35 A. D. 2d 694). Settle order on notice to provide for suspension in accordance with the cited case. Concur — Stevens, P. J., Capozzoli, MeGivern, Steuer and Tilzer, JJ.

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

Determination of respondent, Secretary of State, dated December 23, 1969, in part revoking the real estate broker’s license of petitioner, Louis Silberstang, for untrustworthiness (Real Property Law, § 441-e), unanimously modified, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, to the extent of reducing the penalty imposed to a six months’ suspension of the license, commencing from the date of the order to be entered herein and, as so modified, the determination is otherwise confirmed, [827]*827without costs and without disbursements. The determination that petitioner, Louis Silberstang, failed to supervise his licensed salesmen is supported by substantial evidence. However, in our opinion, on this record, the sanction of revocation imposed was excessive and unduly disproportionate to the offense. A suspension for a period of six months would be more appropriate (Matter of Perlstein v. Lomenzo, 35 A. D. 2d 694). Settle order on notice to provide for suspension in accordance with the cited case. Concur — Stevens, P. J., Capozzoli, MeGivern, Steuer and Tilzer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A.D.2d 826, 325 N.Y.S.2d 297, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3198, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/silberstang-v-lomenzo-nyappdiv-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack