From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Amber Rock Pharmacy v. Axelrod

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 17, 1985
111 A.D.2d 848 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Opinion

June 17, 1985


Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, with costs.

Respondent's determination, which, inter alia, found the petitioner pharmacy to be in violation of certain rules and regulations requiring it to keep records of the receipt and dispensation of controlled substances, was supported by substantial evidence. At an administrative hearing respondent offered into evidence an audit conducted by its investigator showing unexplained overages and shortages of certain controlled substances, and the pharmacy produced an audit, conducted by its employee after receiving notice of pending charges, with contrary results. It is within the province of the administrative judge to accept the respondent's investigator's evidence and deny credence to contrary evidence offered by an interested party ( Ciccone v Waterfront Commn., 52 N.Y.2d 913; Matter of Cassell v. Allen, 27 A.D.2d 597, lv denied 19 N.Y.2d 583).

Furthermore, while there was no evidence specifically linking petitioner Feldman to these violations, he may nonetheless be held responsible, because as a supervising pharmacist he had a clear duty to supervise his employees and make sure adequate records were kept ( Matter of Snyder v. Board of Regents, 50 A.D.2d 966; Matter of Bernstein v. Allen, 26 A.D.2d 727).

Finally, the civil fine imposed, based on the amount of overages and shortages and on the number of incomplete prescriptions filled, is not "`"so disproportionate to the offense, in light of all the circumstances, as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness"'" ( Matter of McDermott v. Murphy, 15 A.D.2d 479, affd 12 N.Y.2d 780). "Professionals have a serious responsibility not to abuse the trust which licensure places in them regarding controlled substances, and [the Department of Health has] the duty to protect the public" ( Matter of Davis v Ambach, 91 A.D.2d 1113, 1113-1114; accord, Matter of Kaplan v Board of Regents, 87 A.D.2d 952; Matter of Martin v. Nyquist, 55 A.D.2d 726). Thompson, J.P., Weinstein, Niehoff and Lawrence, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Amber Rock Pharmacy v. Axelrod

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 17, 1985
111 A.D.2d 848 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)
Case details for

Matter of Amber Rock Pharmacy v. Axelrod

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of AMBER ROCK PHARMACY, INC., Doing Business as PARSON'S…

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

Date published: Jun 17, 1985

Citations

111 A.D.2d 848 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Citing Cases

Matter of Lowenberg v. Sobol

Accordingly, there is no basis for us to interfere. We likewise reject the contentions of Lowenberg and the…

Matter of Bielecki v. Perales

Several of the current residents of the petitioner's facility were shown to have been "unable or…