Wright Mortgage Bankers, Inc. v. State of New York Banking Department

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wright Mortgage Bankers, Inc. v. State of New York Banking Department

104 A.D.3d 421, 959 N.Y.S.2d 918

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

DecidedMarch 5, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 104 A.D.3d 421 (Wright Mortgage Bankers, Inc. v. State of New York Banking Department) 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

Wright Mortgage Bankers, Inc. v. State of New York Banking Department, 104 A.D.3d 421, 959 N.Y.S.2d 918 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan B. Lobis, J.), entered September 8, 2011, denying the petition to annul the determination of respondent that revoked petitioner’s mortgage banking license, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The determination to revoke petitioner’s mortgage banking license was not arbitrary and capricious since petitioner no longer had access to the requisite line of credit (see generally Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222, 231 [1974]; see 3 NYCRR 410.1 [b] [2]). Although petitioner failed to appear at the hearing without having obtained a postponement or adjournment, and, when moving to reopen the hearing, offered no valid excuse for its failure to appear, rather than refuse to consent, the better practice would have been for respondent to agree to an adjournment, especially since petitioner’s principal was recovering from surgery, petitioner had communicated its intention to seek an additional adjournment, and respondent was still processing petitioner’s FOIL request when the Christmas Eve hearing took place. Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, Acosta, Manzanet-Daniels and Román, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2011 NY Slip Op 32383(U).]

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan B. Lobis, J.), entered September 8, 2011, denying the petition to annul the determination of respondent that revoked petitioner’s mortgage banking license, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The determination to revoke petitioner’s mortgage banking license was not arbitrary and capricious since petitioner no longer had access to the requisite line of credit (see generally Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222, 231 [1974]; see 3 NYCRR 410.1 [b] [2]). Although petitioner failed to appear at the hearing without having obtained a postponement or adjournment, and, when moving to reopen the hearing, offered no valid excuse for its failure to appear, rather than refuse to consent, the better practice would have been for respondent to agree to an adjournment, especially since petitioner’s principal was recovering from surgery, petitioner had communicated its intention to seek an additional adjournment, and respondent was still processing petitioner’s FOIL request when the Christmas Eve hearing took place. Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, Acosta, Manzanet-Daniels and Román, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2011 NY Slip Op 32383(U).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

104 A.D.3d 421, 959 N.Y.S.2d 918, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wright-mortgage-bankers-inc-v-state-of-new-york-banking-department-nyappdiv-2013.