In re Richard Gold

2 Citing cases

  1. Huang v. Admin. Review Bd. for Prof'l Med. Conduct

    114 A.D.3d 1103 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)   Cited 5 times

    The determination was not based solely upon the fact of petitioner's conviction, but was instead expressly premised upon its particular characteristics, including the magnitude of the fraud, its five-year duration and petitioner's admitted knowledge that his conduct was wrong. The determination enumerated the mitigating circumstances claimed by petitioner—such as the absence of substandard medical care, petitioner's cooperation with law enforcement and the allegedly commonplace nature of his billing practices in his ethnic community—and further noted the Hearing Committee's findings regarding his genuine remorse and willingness to accept responsibility for his actions. The conclusion that petitioner's license should nonetheless be revoked does not demonstrate that these factors were disregarded, but instead reflects an implicit conclusion by the ARB that they were outweighed by the gravity of his offense ( see Matter of Gold v. DeBuono, 237 A.D.2d 758, 759, 655 N.Y.S.2d 166 [1997];Matter of Bing Tang v. DeBuono, 235 A.D.2d 745, 745, 652 N.Y.S.2d 408 [1997];Matter of Kabnick v. Chassin, 223 A.D.2d 935, 937, 636 N.Y.S.2d 920 [1996],affd.89 N.Y.2d 828, 652 N.Y.S.2d 722, 675 N.E.2d 457 [1996] ).

  2. In re Abraham

    39 A.D.3d 1039 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)   Cited 1 times

    Additional uncontested findings of fact establish that petitioner was negligent on more than one occasion with respect to certain patients, failed to maintain accurate records and misrepresented on his Web site that he was a member of two particular professional medical associations. Given the scope and nature of the charges, we are unable to conclude that the penalty of revocation is so disproportionate to the offenses as to shock one's sense of fairness ( see e.g. Matter of Youssef v State Bd. for Professional Med. Conduct, 6 AD3d 824, 826-827; Matter of Mayer v Novello, 303 AD2d 909, 910; Matter of Citronenbaum v New York State Dept. of Health, 303 AD2d 855, 857; Matter of Alexander v State Bd. for Professional Med. Conduct, 287 AD2d 918, 920; Matter of Gold v DeBuono, 237 AD2d 758, 759; Matter of Jadoo v DeBuono, 235 AD2d 644, 645; Matter of D'Amico v Commissioner of Educ. of State of NY, 167 AD2d 769, 771; see generally Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222, 233 [1974]). In short, that which petitioner does not contest alone supports the finding of license revocation.