Zinman v. Ambach
Citation | 401 N.Y.S.2d 307,60 A.D.2d 731 |
Parties | In the Matter of Lee ZINMAN, Petitioner, v. Gordon AMBACH, as Commissioner of Education of the State of New York, et al., Respondents. |
Decision Date | 29 December 1977 |
Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
Stanley R. Goldstein, New York City (Barry J. Pinkowitz, New York City, of counsel), for petitioner.
Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen. (John J. O'Grady, New York City, of counsel), for respondents.
Before SWEENEY, J. P., and KANE, MAHONEY, LARKIN and HERLIHY, JJ.
Proceeding initiated in this court pursuant to subdivision 4 of section 6510 of the Education Law to annul a determination of the Commissioner of Education suspending petitioner's license to practice podiatry.
The petitioner alleges in his brief as follows:
Petitioner does not dispute that he was convicted of a crime within the meaning of Section 6509(5)(b) of the Education Law nor that his admission of having committed the acts constituting such crime represents unprofessional conduct within the meaning of Section 6509(9) of the Education Law. However, Petitioner contends that the measure of discipline imposed by the Commissioner is so shocking to one's sense of justice as to warrant this Court annulling the Commissioner's judgment.
The record does not establish that the discipline imposed was unwarranted (see Matter of Gliwa v. Board of Regents, 58 A.D.2d 721, 396 N.Y.S.2d 289, mot. for lv. to app. den. 42 N.Y.2d ---, ---N.Y.S.2d ---, ---N.E.2d ----(Dec. 20, 1977)) and accordingly, this court may not interfere with the punishment (Matter of Pell v. Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 N.Y.2d 222, 356 N.Y.S.2d 833, 313 N.E.2d 321).
Determination confirmed, and petition dismissed, without costs.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Zinman v. Black & Decker (U.S.), Inc.
...had been suspended, which suspension was affirmed by the Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division. See Zinman v. Ambach, 60 A.D.2d 731, 401 N.Y.S.2d 307 (3d Dep't 1977). After disclosing this information, the judge There are a number of alternatives confronting us at this juncture. One......
- Crawford v. State