Bloom v. N.Y. State Dept. of Health

Full title: In the Matter of WILLIAM BLOOM, Appellant, v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF…

Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Jan 23, 2003

301 A.D.2d 881 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

752 N.Y.S.2d 923

Opinion

90808

Decided and Entered: January 23, 2003.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (initiated in this Court pursuant to Public Health Law § 230-c) to review a consent order of respondent which, inter alia, limited petitioner's license to practice medicine.

Kressel, Rothlein, Walsh Roth L.L.C., Massapequa (Stephen Kressel of counsel), for appellant.

Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, New York City (Roy A. Esnard of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Crew III, J.P., Carpinello, Mugglin, Rose and Kane, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT

Crew III, J.P.

Respondent charged petitioner with 15 specifications of professional misconduct including, inter alia, negligence, incompetence and moral unfitness. On the second day of the administrative hearing that ensued, petitioner executed a consent agreement limiting his license to practice medicine, and respondent subsequently issued a consent order to that effect. Petitioner thereafter commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annul the subject order.

Inasmuch as the underlying order was rendered on consent, petitioner is not an aggrieved party and, hence, this proceeding does not lie (see e.g. Matter of Mastanduono v. Department of Educ., 159 A.D.2d 752, 753). Rather, petitioner's remedy is an application to set aside the consent order, the denial of which would be subject to our review (see Matter of Anderson v. Ambach, 89 A.D.2d 657, 658, lv denied 57 N.Y.2d 609). In any event, were we to consider petitioner's various contentions, we would find them to be without merit.

Carpinello, Mugglin, Rose and Kane, JJ., concur.

ADJUDGED that the petition is dismissed, without costs.