Ackerman v. Ambach
| Decision Date | 21 July 1988 |
| Citation | 142 A.D.2d 842,530 N.Y.S.2d 893 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Norman M. ACKERMAN, Petitioner, v. Gordon M. AMBACH, as Commissioner of Education of the State of New York, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Wood & Scher (Anthony Z. Scher, of counsel), Scarsdale, for petitioner.
Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen. (Darren O'Connor, of counsel), Education Dept., Dept. of Law, New York City, for respondent.
Before KANE, J.P., and MIKOLL, YESAWICH, HARVEY and MERCURE, JJ.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 () to review a determination of respondent which revoked petitioner's license to practice medicine in New York.
Petitioner was licensed to practice medicine in this State in December 1948. In the late 1950s, petitioner cofounded the Association for Counseling and Therapy (hereinafter ACT). Petitioner served as ACT's psychiatrist and director. Between 1969 and 1975, under the pretense of providing psychiatric treatment, petitioner allegedly engaged in numerous sexual acts with patients and encouraged other lewd and lascivious conduct during both individual and group sessions. Several of the individuals who had been involved in these activities at ACT subsequently filed complaints against petitioner. In November 1978, the State Board for Professional Medical Conduct charged petitioner with practicing his profession fraudulently, with gross negligence and/or gross incompetence, with negligence and/or incompetence on more than one occasion in violation of Education Law § 6509(2), and with practicing in an unprofessional manner in violation of Education Law § 6509(9).
Petitioner denied the charges and a hearing on the matter commenced in February 1979. During the hearing, three individuals who claimed to have been patients of petitioner at ACT testified. These individuals are referred to as patients A, B and D. Petitioner denied that the complaining witnesses were his patients, he denied that he engaged in sexual activities with any of them and he insisted that the group sessions he led were merely gatherings of people engaged in the discussion of a variety of topics involving no form of psychotherapy treatment.
The Hearing Panel credited the testimony of the complaining witnesses and, with minor exceptions, sustained the charges against petitioner. The Hearing Panel recommended that petitioner's license be permanently revoked and that he be assessed a fine of $25,000. After reviewing the Hearing Panel's report, the Commissioner of Health recommended to the Board of Regents that the findings of fact and conclusions of the Hearing Panel be accepted in full along with its recommendation that petitioner's license be revoked. The Regents Review Committee, however, did not accept all the conclusions recommended by the Hearing Panel and the Commissioner of Health. It determined that the fourth specification of the charges pertaining to allegations of professional misconduct could not be sustained because Education Law § 6509(9) requires that any charges based on this section make reference to a specific rule or regulation underlying the charge. The proceeding against petitioner had been commenced after the repeal of 8 NYCRR former part 29 defining professional misconduct and prior to the effective date of the new rules. The Regents Review Committee additionally modified various other conclusions of the Hearing Panel and the recommendation of the Commissioner of Health. It then recommended that petitioner's license be revoked but not on a permanent basis. Respondent accepted the recommendations of the Regents Review Committee and ordered that petitioner's license be revoked upon each specification of the charges as to which the Regents Review Committee found petitioner guilty. Petitioner then commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge respondent's determination.
Petitioner urges that the charges and testimony against him failed to adequately specify when the alleged misconduct occurred and, thus, that he was denied due process. We cannot agree. An individual facing professional misconduct proceedings is entitled to notice of the charges and an opportunity to respond (Matter of Dorsey v. Board of Regents, 87 A.D.2d 728, 449 N.Y.S.2d 337). The dates and nature of the alleged misconduct must be sufficiently precise, when considered with information available to the charged individual, to allow the presentation of an intelligent defense ( see, Matter of Melone v. State of New York Educ. Dept., 115...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Starishevsky v. Hofstra University
...of the inquiry must be sufficiently precise to allow for the presentation of an intelligent defense (see e.g. Matter of Ackerman v. Ambach, 142 A.D.2d 842, 530 N.Y.S.2d 893 [1988] affd. 73 N.Y.2d 323, 540 N.Y.S.2d 6, 537 N.E.2d 181 Under the federal law (20 U.S.C. §§ 1681 et seq.) and the f......
-
Gonzalez v. New York State Dept. of Health
...Sobol, 172 A.D.2d 897, 567 N.Y.S.2d 954, lv. denied 78 N.Y.2d 856, 574 N.Y.S.2d 937, 580 N.E.2d 409, quoting Matter of Ackerman v. Ambach, 142 A.D.2d 842, 845, 530 N.Y.S.2d 893, aff'd 73 N.Y.2d 323, 540 N.Y.S.2d 6, 537 N.E.2d 181; see, Matter of Martinez-Urrutia v. Szetela, 216 A.D.2d 700, ......
-
Ackerman v. N.Y.S. Dep't of Health
...897, 567 N.Y.S.2d 954 [1991], lv. denied 78 N.Y.2d 856, 574 N.Y.S.2d 937, 580 N.E.2d 409 [1991], quoting Matter of Ackerman v. Ambach, 142 A.D.2d 842, 845, 530 N.Y.S.2d 893 [1988], affd. 73 N.Y.2d 323, 540 N.Y.S.2d 6, 537 N.E.2d 181 [1989] ; accord Matter of Sundaram v. Novello, 53 A.D.3d 8......
-
Rigle v. Daines
...897, 567 N.Y.S.2d 954 [1991], lv. denied 78 N.Y.2d 856, 574 N.Y.S.2d 937, 580 N.E.2d 409 [1991], quoting Matter of Ackerman v. Ambach, 142 A.D.2d 842, 845, 530 N.Y.S.2d 893 [1988], affd. 73 N.Y.2d 323, 540 N.Y.S.2d 6, 537 N.E.2d 181 [1989] ). Petitioner contends that he did not have suffici......