Tesmetges v. Paterson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tesmetges v. Paterson

78 A.D.2d 857, 432 N.Y.S.2d 632, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13561

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

DecidedNovember 3, 1980

StatusPublished

This text of 78 A.D.2d 857 (Tesmetges v. Paterson) 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

Tesmetges v. Paterson, 78 A.D.2d 857, 432 N.Y.S.2d 632, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13561 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review respondent’s determination, dated December 5,1979, which, after a hearing, found that the petitioner had demonstrated untrustworthiness and (1) directed that his application for renewal of his real estate broker’s license not be processed until payment by him of a commission allegedly owed by him to a real estate salesperson formerly in his employ, and (2) further directed that upon such payment, the application be processed and if the license is renewed, that it be suspended for a period of three months or, in lieu thereof, he pay a $500 fine. Petition granted, determination annulled, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and charges dismissed. The sole conduct relied upon to demonstrate petitioner’s alleged untrustworthiness arose out of a bona fide, purely private dispute between himself and a former salesperson regarding money allegedly owed one to the other. The foregoing is legally insufficient to sustain the determination made by the Secretary of State (see Matter of Flushing Kent Realty Corp. v Cuomo, 55 AD2d 646; Matter of Vincent v Department of State of State of N. Y., 40 AD2d 612; Matter of Kreitsek v Department of State of State of N. Y., 28 AD2d 721). Hopkins, J. P., Gulotta, Margett and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

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

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review respondent’s determination, dated December 5,1979, which, after a hearing, found that the petitioner had demonstrated untrustworthiness and (1) directed that his application for renewal of his real estate broker’s license not be processed until payment by him of a commission allegedly owed by him to a real estate salesperson formerly in his employ, and (2) further directed that upon such payment, the application be processed and if the license is renewed, that it be suspended for a period of three months or, in lieu thereof, he pay a $500 fine. Petition granted, determination annulled, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and charges dismissed. The sole conduct relied upon to demonstrate petitioner’s alleged untrustworthiness arose out of a bona fide, purely private dispute between himself and a former salesperson regarding money allegedly owed one to the other. The foregoing is legally insufficient to sustain the determination made by the Secretary of State (see Matter of Flushing Kent Realty Corp. v Cuomo, 55 AD2d 646; Matter of Vincent v Department of State of State of N. Y., 40 AD2d 612; Matter of Kreitsek v Department of State of State of N. Y., 28 AD2d 721). Hopkins, J. P., Gulotta, Margett and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 A.D.2d 857, 432 N.Y.S.2d 632, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13561, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tesmetges-v-paterson-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack