Opinion
December 19, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Cayuga County, Contiguglia, J.
Present — Doerr, J.P., Green, Balio, Lawton and Schnepp, JJ.
Determination unanimously confirmed and petition dismissed, without costs. Memorandum: The Hearing Officer found that petitioner, a licensed real estate broker, exhibited untrustworthiness and incompetence by failing to use a purchase offer form that properly advised the parties to seek legal advice before signing; by discouraging the purchasers from seeking legal assistance before signing; by failing to insert a sales contingency clause when he knew that such a clause was essential for protection of the buyers' interests; by utilizing a form obligating either party to pay commissions if the sale was not consummated and then by enforcing that provision in a civil suit even though the sale fell through because he failed to negotiate an agreement with all of the proper contingencies. These findings are all supported by substantial evidence and warrant the determination that petitioner engaged in untrustworthy conduct in violation of Real Property Law § 441-c (see, Matter of Friedman v. Paterson, 89 A.D.2d 701, affd 58 N.Y.2d 727; Matter of Gudinsky v. Cuomo, 64 A.D.2d 899; Matter of Tucci v. Department of State, 63 A.D.2d 835; Matter of Duncan Hill Realty v. Department of State, 62 A.D.2d 690, appeal dismissed 45 N.Y.2d 821). We do not find petitioner's 60-day suspension and further suspension pending repayment of $2,600 in commissions so disproportionate as to shock one's sense of fairness (Kostika v. Cuomo, 41 N.Y.2d 673; Matter of Butterly Green v. Lomenzo, 36 N.Y.2d 250).