Weiner v. Lomenzo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Weiner v. Lomenzo

32 A.D.2d 634, 300 N.Y.S.2d 661, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3876

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

DecidedMay 27, 1969

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 32 A.D.2d 634 (Weiner 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

Weiner v. Lomenzo, 32 A.D.2d 634, 300 N.Y.S.2d 661, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3876 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination, dated June 5, 1968, suspending real estate broker’s license of petitioner Weiner and real estate salesmen’s licenses of petitioners Bonello and Spitzer for six months, unanimously modified on the law and in the exercise of discretion to the extent of reducing the penalty to three months’ suspension commencing from the date of the order1 to be entered herein, and, as so modified, confirmed, without costs or disbursements. The enforcement of the determination was stayed pending dispostion of the article-78 proceeding, which was transferred to this court pursuant to CPLR 7804 (subd. [g]). The determination finding petitioners guilty of untrustworthiness is supported by substantial evidence. However, in our opinion, under all the circumstances the sanctions imposed were excessive and unduly disproportionate to the offense. On the record before us, a suspension for a period of three months would be more appropriate. (Ancis v. Lomenzo, 31 A D 2d 615.) Concur — McGivern, J. P., Markewieh, McNally and Bastow, JJ.

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

Determination, dated June 5, 1968, suspending real estate broker’s license of petitioner Weiner and real estate salesmen’s licenses of petitioners Bonello and Spitzer for six months, unanimously modified on the law and in the exercise of discretion to the extent of reducing the penalty to three months’ suspension commencing from the date of the order1 to be entered herein, and, as so modified, confirmed, without costs or disbursements. The enforcement of the determination was stayed pending dispostion of the article-78 proceeding, which was transferred to this court pursuant to CPLR 7804 (subd. [g]). The determination finding petitioners guilty of untrustworthiness is supported by substantial evidence. However, in our opinion, under all the circumstances the sanctions imposed were excessive and unduly disproportionate to the offense. On the record before us, a suspension for a period of three months would be more appropriate. (Ancis v. Lomenzo, 31 A D 2d 615.) Concur — McGivern, J. P., Markewieh, McNally and Bastow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 A.D.2d 634, 300 N.Y.S.2d 661, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3876, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weiner-v-lomenzo-nyappdiv-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack