Steinmetz v. Lomenzo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Steinmetz v. Lomenzo

34 A.D.2d 772, 311 N.Y.S.2d 397, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4815

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

DecidedMay 19, 1970

StatusPublished

This text of 34 A.D.2d 772 (Steinmetz 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

Steinmetz v. Lomenzo, 34 A.D.2d 772, 311 N.Y.S.2d 397, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4815 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of the respondent, dated February 28, 1969, suspending the petitioner’s real estate broker’s license for a period of four months, unanimously annulled, without costs and without disbursements, and the same is vacated. We conclude that under all the circumstances disclosed there was no substantial evidence in the record to sustain the finding of the hearing officer, on which the order of the Secretary of State was based, that the petitioner knowingly aided and abetted two minor functionaries in his office in a violation of section 440-a of the Real Property Law. (.Matter of PMnn v. Kross, 8 A D 2d 132.) Among other facets of the proceeding, we note: (a) the complaint was not made until July 18, 1968, or about a year-and-a-half after the events; and (b) the facts are equally consistent with a holding that the wife of the petitioner and the office female employee were but lesser adjuncts of the office and simple office personnel who did not hold themselves out as real estate brokers or saleswomen. Concur — Stevens, P. J., McGivern, McNally and Tilzer, JJ.

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

Determination of the respondent, dated February 28, 1969, suspending the petitioner’s real estate broker’s license for a period of four months, unanimously annulled, without costs and without disbursements, and the same is vacated. We conclude that under all the circumstances disclosed there was no substantial evidence in the record to sustain the finding of the hearing officer, on which the order of the Secretary of State was based, that the petitioner knowingly aided and abetted two minor functionaries in his office in a violation of section 440-a of the Real Property Law. (.Matter of PMnn v. Kross, 8 A D 2d 132.) Among other facets of the proceeding, we note: (a) the complaint was not made until July 18, 1968, or about a year-and-a-half after the events; and (b) the facts are equally consistent with a holding that the wife of the petitioner and the office female employee were but lesser adjuncts of the office and simple office personnel who did not hold themselves out as real estate brokers or saleswomen. Concur — Stevens, P. J., McGivern, McNally and Tilzer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 A.D.2d 772, 311 N.Y.S.2d 397, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4815, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steinmetz-v-lomenzo-nyappdiv-1970.