Asman v. Ambach
| Decision Date | 26 March 1985 |
| Citation | 478 N.E.2d 182,489 N.Y.S.2d 41,64 N.Y.2d 989 |
| Parties | , 478 N.E.2d 182 In the Matter of Arnold M. ASMAN, Appellant, v. Gordon M. AMBACH, as Commissioner of the Department of Education of the State of New York, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The judgment of the Appellate Division, 98 A.D.2d 847, 471 N.Y.S.2d 336, should be reversed, with costs, respondents' determination annulled and the matter remitted to the Appellate Division for remand to respondents for further proceedings in accordance with this memorandum.
In this expedited professional conduct proceeding, authorized by Education Law § 6510(2)(d) based upon petitioner's conviction of a crime (Education Law § 6509) pursuant to which his license to practice accounting was revoked, the Regents Review Committee refused to make a stenographic record of its proceedings. Petitioner contends that this refusal was a denial of due process and precluded the Board of Regents from properly considering a full record of the proceedings before the Committee, including the "evidence and testimony relating to the nature and severity of the penalty to be imposed upon the licensee."
At the time the petitioner's hearing was conducted the statute did not require that a stenographic record be made.
However, on December 21, 1984, Education Law § 6510 was amended in respect to such proceedings. The Laws of 1984 (ch. 1005, § 15) amended section 6510(2)(d) to provide that where authorized expedited proceedings are followed and there is a referral to a Regent's Review Committee for review, there shall be added to the notice of hearing the statement that the licensee may present evidence or sworn testimony on his behalf. The requirement that a stenographic record of the hearing be made was also added (L.1984, ch. 1005, § 15). Section 6510(4)(b) was amended to require that in those expedited proceedings where there is a direct referral to the Regent's Review Committee pursuant to section 6510(2)(d), in addition to those matters already required to be considered by the Committee, its review must be based on "any evidence or sworn testimony presented by the licensee or the department at the hearing." (L.1984, ch. 1005, § 16.) Further amendments to Education Law § 6510 were made by the Laws of 1984 (ch. 1018). Section 3 of that chapter provided in pertinent part that such evidence and sworn testimony submitted to the Committee "shall be limited to evidence and testimony relating to the nature and severity of the penalty to be imposed upon the licensee" (L.1984, ch. 1018, § 3).
These amendments to Education Law § 6510 were to take effect immediately and would apply "to proceedings in which a notice of hearing has been served on the licensee * * * prior to the effective date of such (L.1984, chs. 1005, 1018).
It is the rule "that a court applies the law as it exists at the time of appeal, not as it existed at the time of original determination". (Matter of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany v. New York State Dept. of Health
...289-290, 251 N.Y.S.2d 433, 200 N.E.2d 427; Shielcrawt v. Moffett, 294 N.Y. 180, 189-190, 61 N.E.2d 435; cf. Matter of Asman v. Ambach, 64 N.Y.2d 989, 489 N.Y.S.2d 41, 478 N.E.2d 182; Matter of Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y. v. State Bd. of Equalization & Assessment, 103 A.D.2d 453, 480 N.Y......
-
Ditech Fin. v. Naidu
... ... law, by generally giving relief to the aggrieved party" ... ( Nelson v HSBC Bank USA , 87 A.D.3d at 998; see ... Matter of Asman v Ambach, 64 N.Y.2d 989, 991, 478 N.E.2d ... 182, 489 N.Y.S.2d 41[1985].) ... Here, ... the legislative intent behind FAPA is ... ...
-
Suffolk Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Michelle C. (In re Mia S.)
... ... HSBC Bank USA, 87 A.D.3d at 998, 929 N.Y.S.2d 259 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Asman v. Ambach, 64 N.Y.2d 989, 991, 489 N.Y.S.2d 41, 478 N.E.2d 182 ). "Classifying a statute as remedial does not automatically overcome the strong ... ...
-
U.S. Bank Tr. v. Miele
...party' (Nelson v HSBC Bank USA, 87 A.D.3d at 998 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Asman v Ambach, 64 N.Y.2d 9 89, 991, 478 N.E.2d 182, 489 N.Y.S.2d 41). Classifying a statute as 'remedial' does not automatically overcome the strong presumption of prospectivity (Majewski v B......