Rojas v. Sobol
| Decision Date | 21 November 1990 |
| Citation | 167 A.D.2d 707,563 N.Y.S.2d 284 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Libardo ROJAS, Petitioner, v. Thomas SOBOL, as Commissioner of Education, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Antonio Savaglio, Lackawanna, for petitioner.
Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen. (Raymond J. Foley, of counsel), New York City, for respondent.
Before KANE, J.P., and WEISS, MIKOLL, YESAWICH and HARVEY, JJ.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (initiated in this court pursuant to Education Law § 6510-a[4] to review a determination of respondent which revoked petitioner's license to practice medicine in New York.
In September 1988, the Department of Health's Office of Professional Medical Conduct (hereinafter OPMC) initiated charges against petitioner alleging 13 incidents of abuse and inappropriate physical contact involving one female employee and six female patients over the time period from 1977 to 1988. After a hearing, a panel of the OPMC set forth findings and conclusions recommending that 12 of the charges be sustained and that petitioner's medical license be permanently revoked. Upon a review of the record, the Commissioner of Health recommended to the Board of Regents that the findings and conclusions of the Hearing Panel be accepted and that petitioner's license be revoked. Upon a similar review, and after oral argument and further submissions by petitioner, the Regents Review Committee unanimously recommended acceptance of conclusions of the Hearing Panel and that petitioner's license be revoked. 1 The Board of Regents reviewed the entire record, accepted both the Hearing Panel's findings and conclusions, and those of the Commissioner of Health. Petitioner's license was revoked and this proceeding ensued.
Petitioner contends that he was prejudiced by the delay in the commencement of the proceedings. However, neither the Statute of Limitations nor the doctrine of laches apply to disciplinary proceedings and, absent proof of actual prejudice, mere delay is not the basis for annulling a determination in a disciplinary hearing (see, Matter of Wolf v. Ambach, 95 A.D.2d 877, 464 N.Y.S.2d 244; see also, Matter of Cortlandt Nursing Home v. Axelrod, 66 N.Y.2d 169, 177, 495 N.Y.S.2d 927, 486 N.E.2d 785, cert. denied 476 U.S. 1115, 106 S.Ct. 1971, 90 L.Ed.2d 655; Matter of Ambrosio v. State Div. of Human Rights, 144 A.D.2d 662, 535 N.Y.S.2d 381). Moreover, petitioner's claim of prejudice is unsubstantiated. Proof of the subject incidents involving one-on-one situations relied solely upon the credibility of the complaining witnesses and petitioner, not outside witnesses or records. Because petitioner's medical license is a private interest which carries with it the obligation to adhere to strict ethical standards, errant behavior is not shielded by time limitations (see, Matter of Sinha v. Ambach, 91 A.D.2d 703, 457 N.Y.S.2d 603).
Petitioner next contends that he was deprived of a fair and impartial hearing due to (1) certain evidentiary rulings, (2) the fact that the Hearing Panel was all female, and (3) the Department of Health's refusal to turn over its investigative file. We find no merit in any of these arguments. It is well settled that the strict rules of evidence do not apply in administrative proceedings (see, Matter of Ackerman v. Ambach, 142 A.D.2d 842, 844, 530 N.Y.S.2d 893, aff'd 73 N.Y.2d 323, 540 N.Y.S.2d 6, 537 N.E.2d 181), and as the rulings involved relevancy, they were well within the discretion of the Administrative Law Judge. Petitioner has provided no factual basis to suggest that the gender makeup of the panel was inappropriate or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Finelli v. Chassin
...787, 788, 577 N.Y.S.2d 521, appeal dismissed, lv. denied, 79 N.Y.2d 941, 583 N.Y.S.2d 185, 592 N.E.2d 793; Matter of Rojas v. Sobol, 167 A.D.2d 707, 709, 563 N.Y.S.2d 284, lv. denied, 77 N.Y.2d 806, 568 N.Y.S.2d 914, 571 N.E.2d 84). This court has consistently declined to substitute its jud......
-
Reddy v. State Bd. for Professional Medical Conduct
...the testimony of the complaining witnesses and petitioner, who recalled details of the events with clarity (see, Matter of Rojas v. Sobol, 167 A.D.2d 707, 708, 563 N.Y.S.2d 284, lv. denied 77 N.Y.2d 806, 568 N.Y.S.2d 914, 571 N.E.2d 84), and there is no indication that the delay thwarted pe......
-
Matala v. Board of Regents of University of State of N.Y.
...169, 177-178, 495 N.Y.S.2d 927, 486 N.E.2d 785, cert. denied 476 U.S. 1115, 106 S.Ct. 1971, 90 L.Ed.2d 655; Matter of Rojas v. Sobol, 167 A.D.2d 707, 708, 563 N.Y.S.2d 284, lv. denied 77 N.Y.2d 806, 568 N.Y.S.2d 914, 571 N.E.2d In light of the pattern of substandard practice found, we are u......
-
Martinez-Urrutia v. Szetela
...principle that the rules of evidence need not be strictly observed in a proceeding of this type (see, Matter of Rojas v. Sobol, 167 A.D.2d 707, 708, 563 N.Y.S.2d 284, lv. denied 77 N.Y.2d 806, 568 N.Y.S.2d 914, 571 N.E.2d 84; Matter of Diamond v. Sobol, 145 A.D.2d 786, 787, 535 N.Y.S.2d 768......