Siegel v. Mangan
| Decision Date | 23 April 1940 |
| Citation | 283 N.Y. 557,27 N.E.2d 280 |
| Parties | Max SIEGEL v. Thomas J. MANGAN and others. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, 258 App.Div. 448, 16 N.Y.S.2d 1000.
Proceeding in the matter of the application of Max Siegel for an order against Thomas J. Mangan and others, constituting the Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York, and another pursuant to article 78 of the Civil Practice Act, section 1283 et seq., to review the action of the Board of Regents in reconsidering the application of petitioner for a license to practice as an architect after it had previously passed a resolution to grant the license. In October 1938, petitioner who was a licensed professional engineer applied to the Board of Regents for a license to practice as a registered architect under the provisions of section 51 of the Education Law, Consol.Laws, c. 16. The board voted to grant a license and notified petitioner of its action, and he forwarded an application and license fee. A license was prepared by the Department of Education and forwarded to the State Board of Examiners of Architects for signature, and petitioner contended that there was no provision of law requiring or permitted the State Board of Examiners of Architects to sign a license and pointed to subdivision 1 of section 1479 of the Education Law as requiring the Department of Education to issue the license.
The Board of Examiners refused to sign the license and returned it with a letter stating in substance that petitioner had been before the Board of Examiners in 1931 and had been denied admission to the examination on the ground that his application proved that he had been practicing illegally and also that the board failed to find anything in the law that would authorize the regents to exempt a candidate from examination. At a meeting on April 21, 1939, the Board of Regents voted to reconsider its action granting a license to petitioner and to lay the application on the table until the May meeting.
An order was issued directing petitioner to appear before the regents on May 19, 1939, and show cause why the resolution dated November 16, 1938, should not be rescinded or modified. This proceeding was commenced May 6, 1939, by petition and notice of motion made returnable at the Rensselaer Special Term. The Special Term denied the motion on the ground that until a license was actually issued, the regents had power to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of New York v. Public Service Commission
...v. Allen, 13 A.D.2d 866, 214 N.Y.S.2d 985; Matter of Siegel v. Mangan, 258 App.Div. 448, 450, 16 N.Y.S.2d 1000, 1002, affd. 283 N.Y. 557, 27 N.E.2d 280; Matter of General Mutual Insurance Co. v. Mutual Insurance Rating Bureau, 23 Misc.2d 991, 204 N.Y.S.2d 679; Matter of Town of Cheektowaga ......
-
Van Patten v. Ingraham
...or denied the permit sought by petitioner (cf. Matter of Siegel v. Mangan, 258 App.Div. 448, 450, 16 N.Y.S.2d 1000, 1002, affd. 283 N.Y. 557, 27 N.E.2d 280; Mtr. of Tn. of Cheektowaga v. Levitt, 22 Misc.2d 163, 164--165, 198 N.Y.S.2d 155, 157--158, affd. 12 A.D.2d 848, 209 N.Y.S.2d 911, aff......
-
Venes v. Community School Bd. of Dist. 26
...without opn. 289 N.Y. 672, 45 N.E.2d 174; Matter of Siegel v. Mangan, 258 App.Div. 448, 16 N.Y.S.2d 1000, affd. without opn., 283 N.Y. 557, 27 N.E.2d 280; see, also, Matter of Irish Int. Airlines (Levine), 48 A.D.2d 202, 369 N.Y.S.2d 24, affd. 41 N.Y.2d 819, 393 N.Y.S.2d 397, 361 N.E.2d 104......
-
Hamptons Hospital & Medical Center, Inc. v. Moore
...rendered it subject to reconsideration by the agency. (See Matter of Siegel v. Mangan, 258 App.Div. 448, 16 N.Y.S.2d 1000, affd. 283 N.Y. 557, 27 N.E.2d 280.) The 1972 resolution, on its face, states that it is merely a proposal to approve. Such a proposal does not constitute an immutable d......