Opinion
February 11, 1985
Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed, on the merits, with costs.
The record establishes that the petitioner real estate broker entered into a sub rosa verbal agreement with the purchasers to secure additional compensation for negotiating a sale of real estate, which changed their financial status for mortgage purposes, failed to disclose this agreement at the closing, and then threatened and harassed the purchasers in order to enforce the obligation. Respondent's determination that this course of conduct demonstrated untrustworthiness and incompetency is supported by substantial evidence and, accordingly, we confirm said determination ( see, Matter of Gold v Lomenzo, 29 N.Y.2d 468; Matter of Rustine v Patterson, 82 A.D.2d 969; Matter of Brennan v Cuomo, 69 A.D.2d 881).
Moreover, petitioners' failure to object to the adequacy of the notice of charges against them at the administrative hearing and to raise this contention in the initial petition operates as a waiver of this claim ( see, Matter of Hopkins v Blum, 87 A.D.2d 613, affd 58 N.Y.2d 1011). In any event, petitioners were clearly and definitely apprised of the factual transaction upon which the charges were based and, therefore, the notice comported with due process requirements ( see, Matter of Rustine v Patterson, supra; Grimm v Department of State, 56 A.D.2d 591). Lazer, J.P., Mangano, Gibbons and Rubin, JJ., concur.