From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Perlstein v. Lomenzo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 6, 1970
35 A.D.2d 694 (N.Y. App. Div. 1970)

Opinion

October 6, 1970


Determination dated December 23, 1969, revoking petitioner's license as a real estate salesman, effective January 15, 1970, for untrustworthiness (Real Property Law, § 441-c, subd. 1) unanimously modified, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, to the extent of reducing the penalty imposed to a six months' suspension of the license commencing from the date of the order entered herein, and as so modified the determination is otherwise confirmed, without costs and without disbursements to either party. The determination finding petitioner guilty of untrustworthiness is supported by substantial evidence. However, in our opinion, under all the circumstances, the sanction of revocation imposed was excessive and unduly disproportionate to the offense. On the record before us, a suspension for a period of six months would be more appropriate (see Matter of Black v. Lomenzo, 31 A.D.2d 908). Since it appears that the determination of the respondent was stayed, pursuant to stipulation dated February 24, 1970 pending final determination of this proceeding, petitioner shall receive credit for the 40 days intervening between revocation and the stay toward the six months' suspension directed herein.

Concur — Stevens, P.J., Eager, Nunez, McNally and Tilzer, JJ.


Summaries of

Matter of Perlstein v. Lomenzo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 6, 1970
35 A.D.2d 694 (N.Y. App. Div. 1970)
Case details for

Matter of Perlstein v. Lomenzo

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of ROSE PERLSTEIN, Petitioner, v. JOHN P. LOMENZO, as…

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

Date published: Oct 6, 1970

Citations

35 A.D.2d 694 (N.Y. App. Div. 1970)

Citing Cases

Matter of Silberstang v. Lomenzo

However, in our opinion, on this record, the sanction of revocation imposed was excessive and unduly…