Opinion
December 29, 1949.
Proceeding under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act to review a determination revoking petitioner's license to practice medicine. Petitioner's license to practice medicine was revoked for addiction to morphine and for fraud and deceit as to narcotics prescriptions. The addiction of petitioner to morphine prior to the amendment of paragraph (c) of subdivision 2 of section 6514 Educ. of the Education Law (L. 1947, ch. 518, eff. April 1, 1947), is not disputed. The statute formerly allowed revocation of a license of a physician who "is" thus addicted; the amended section reads "is or has been" thus addicted. Petitioner contends that he was cured of his addiction at the time charges were made (1948) and before the statute was amended, and therefore the "has been addicted" provision could not affect him. The statute, however, made the addiction to narcotics a good ground for revocation of a license at the time of petitioner's addiction. The amendment of 1947 did nothing to add to the penalty or to enlarge the grounds as to any period in which the prior statute provided the same grounds for revocation. The petitioner's license could have been revoked by a proceeding in 1948 for addiction in 1947 under the statute then in effect and the words "has been" did nothing more than continue a power of revocation which would have continued without them. Besides this, the second ground for revocation, fraud and deceit in the signing and utilization of prescriptions for narcotics, if so abundantly established as to constitute alone a good ground for revocation. Determination and order of respondents confirmed, without costs. Foster, P.J., Brewster, Deyo, Santry and Bergan, JJ., concur.