Decision Date21 June 2001
Citation284 A.D.2d 737,726 N.Y.S.2d 188
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
PartiesIn the Matter of GEOFFREY RICHSTONE, Petitioner,<BR>v.<BR>ANTONIA C. NOVELLO, as Commissioner of Health of the State of New York, Respondent.

Crew III, J. P., Peters, Carpinello and Lahtinen, JJ., concur.

Rose, J.

Following a hearing, the Hearing Committee of the State Board for Professional Medical Conduct sustained 22 of 27 specifications of misconduct against petitioner including willfully filing false reports, practicing with negligence on more than one occasion, practicing fraudulently, failing to maintain adequate records and performing unnecessary medical tests and treatment. The Hearing Committee found petitioner to be morally unfit to practice medicine as well as unsuitable for retraining or probation, and imposed a penalty of license revocation. Petitioner now challenges those determinations in this CPLR article 78 proceeding.

The scope of our review of decisions of the Hearing Committee is whether the determination is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Slakter v DeBuono, 263 AD2d 695, 697; Matter of Tames v DeBuono, 257 AD2d 784, 786). If the evidence meets that standard, we will defer to the Hearing Committee's resolutions of conflicting evidence and credibility (see, Matter of Reddy v State Bd. for Professional Med. Conduct, 259 AD2d 847, 849, lv denied 93 NY2d 813; Matter of Tames v DeBuono, supra, at 786). As the record here contains substantial evidence supporting the charges which the Hearing Committee sustained, we find no basis to question its credibility determinations.

The Hearing Committee found that petitioner had deprived patient A of timely access to her medical records and then, some two years after she last sought treatment from him, he sent her a letter stating for the first time that she owed him $1,373 in copayments. The Hearing Committee concluded that this letter was sent with the intention of persuading her to drop her complaint to the Department of Health concerning her records in exchange for petitioner's forgiveness of this bill. While forgiveness was not explicitly conditioned on patient A's withdrawal of her complaint, the letter asked her to do so and offered to cancel the bill if she would have difficulty paying it. The Hearing Committee was free to interpret this as an implicit offer of such an exchange and discredit petitioner's explanation of the transaction.

The Hearing Committee also found that petitioner falsified his application for reappointment to the medical staff at Cabrini Hospital when he answered "no" when asked whether he had received any sanctions within the last year about which his department director did not know. Given petitioner's testimony that he never informed the director of the relevant sanction and the director's statement that he was not aware of it, the Hearing Committee could reasonably infer that petitioner intended to be misleading on the application and so was not bound to credit petitioner's statement to the contrary (see, Matter of Tames v DeBuono, supra, at 786; Matter of Post v State of New York Dept. of Health, 245 AD2d 985, 987).

Petitioner also contends that inconsistencies in the findings of fact regarding patients C and D warrant annulment of the sustained specifications as to those patients. Specifically, petitioner cites the Hearing Committee's decision not to sustain the allegations of improper diagnoses concerning patients C and D while simultaneously sustaining other allegations that he fraudulently billed each patient's insurance company based on deliberately exaggerated findings. Petitioner also finds a contradiction in the Hearing Committee's conclusions that he failed to follow up on his findings as to patient C and yet his follow-up testing was excessive. We find, however, that significant differences between the nature of the charges dispel any appearance of inconsistency.

Petitioner also criticizes the Hearing Committee's decision to credit the witnesses of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Matter of Lauersen v. Novello
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 11 April 2002
    ... ... With each of the Hearing Committee's findings supported by the necessary quantum of evidence (see, Matter of Rivera [State Line Delivery Serv. - Roberts], 69 N.Y.2d 679, 682, cert denied 481 US 1049), we find that, despite the existence of contrary testimony (see, Matter of Richstone v Novello, 284 A.D.2d 737, 739), there exists no basis upon which we would disturb the determination rendered ... Carpinello, Mugglin, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur ... ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed ... ENTER: Michael J. Novack Clerk of the ... ...
  • Matter of Kole v. Nys Edu. Dept., 3
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 21 February 2002
    ... ... of conflicting evidence and credibility (see, id., at 789; Matter of Cohen v Mills, 271 A.D.2d 826, 827-828; see also, Matter of Richstone v Novello, 284 A.D.2d 737, 737) ... Our review of this record leads inescapably to the conclusion that the testimony of the expert for respondent ... ...
  • Weeks v. State Educ. Department/University of State
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 16 January 2014
    ...113 A.D.3d 944978 N.Y.S.2d 4642014 N.Y. Slip Op. 00261In the Matter of Amy Lynn WEEKS, Petitioner,v.STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT/UNIVERSITY OF the STATE of New York, ... , 28 A.D.3d 966, 967, 813 N.Y.S.2d 270 [2006]; Matter of         [978 N.Y.S.2d 466]Richstone v. Novello, 284 A.D.2d 737, 739, 726 N.Y.S.2d 188 [2001] ). Here, although the Office of ... ...
  • Matter of Singer v. Novello, 3
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 29 November 2001
    ... ... The scope of our review of a determination of the Hearing Committee is limited to whether it is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Richstone v Novello, 284 A.D.2d 737; Matter of Reddy v State Bd. for Professional Med. Conduct, 259 A.D.2d 847, 849, lv denied 93 N.Y.2d 813). We are also mindful that the assessment and resolution of conflicting evidence and witness credibility are within the exclusive province of the Hearing Committee ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT