Winkelman v. Department of Health

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Winkelman v. Department of Health

27 A.D.2d 834, 281 N.Y.S.2d 717, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4536

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

DecidedMarch 30, 1967

StatusPublished

This text of 27 A.D.2d 834 (Winkelman v. Department of Health) 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

Winkelman v. Department of Health, 27 A.D.2d 834, 281 N.Y.S.2d 717, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4536 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment entered December 21, 1965 granting petitioner-respondent’s application in this article 78 proceeding for a judgment annulling the determination of respondent-appellant is unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, with $50 costs and disburse[835]*835ments to the respondent-appellant, and the petition dismissed. When the Board of Health took the action it did, it acted well within the purview of its authority. Section 13.15 (subd. [a], par. [2]) of the New York City Health Code explicitly authorizes the board to require “ information concerning its [the applicant’s] personnel, equipment and scope of activities”. After a protracted investigation the board made a judgment that the applicant’s scope of activities was such as to preclude a proper training program. This judgment was not unreasonable. Even if the observation by Special Term were true, namely that the petitioner had been subjected to a bureaucratic “run around ”, this would not establish a clear legal right to the approval requested. Concur—Eager, J. P., Steuer, Capozzoli, McGivern and Witmer, JJ.

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

Judgment entered December 21, 1965 granting petitioner-respondent’s application in this article 78 proceeding for a judgment annulling the determination of respondent-appellant is unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, with $50 costs and disburse[835]*835ments to the respondent-appellant, and the petition dismissed. When the Board of Health took the action it did, it acted well within the purview of its authority. Section 13.15 (subd. [a], par. [2]) of the New York City Health Code explicitly authorizes the board to require “ information concerning its [the applicant’s] personnel, equipment and scope of activities”. After a protracted investigation the board made a judgment that the applicant’s scope of activities was such as to preclude a proper training program. This judgment was not unreasonable. Even if the observation by Special Term were true, namely that the petitioner had been subjected to a bureaucratic “run around ”, this would not establish a clear legal right to the approval requested. Concur—Eager, J. P., Steuer, Capozzoli, McGivern and Witmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.2d 834, 281 N.Y.S.2d 717, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4536, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/winkelman-v-department-of-health-nyappdiv-1967.