The respondent, following a hearing, found that charges that petitioner had been convicted of a crime in a court of competent jurisdiction (Education Law, § 6514, subd. 2, par. [b]) and had been guilty of unprofessional conduct (Education Law, § 6514, subd. 2, par. [g]), had been sustained and revoked his license and certificate of registration to practice medicine. Petitioner has been convicted on five counts of unlawful acts in relation to examination in violation of subdivisions 4, 5 and 6 of section 225 Educ. of the Education Law and on one count of conspiracy to commit such crimes and has had his conviction after a Huntley hearing upheld by the highest court in this State ( People v. Pepe, 18 N.Y.2d 955) and certiorari denied by the United States Supreme Court ( Pepe v. New York, 387 U.S. 909). Petitioner despite his exhaustive prior litigation of his conviction initially seeks again to contest the validity thereof here on the basis that statements made by him to personnel of the Department of Education were obtained in violation of his constitutional rights, since the method of questioning him did not comply with "procedures to be followed by law enforcement officials during their pre-arraignment interrogation of suspects" and in violation of the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Federal Constitution, as enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in Escobedo v. Illinois ( 378 U.S. 478) and Miranda v. Arizona ( 384 U.S. 436). However, not only has petitioner already fully litigated these very issues in his attempt to avoid his conviction (see 25 A.D.2d 821 and 18 N.Y.2d 955) but such contention under the facts here present are of no avail in the instant disciplinary pr
Decided March 2, 1967 Appeal from ( 18 N.Y.2d 955) MOTIONS TO AMEND REMITTITUR
When the court's charge concerning voluntariness of the statements is considered in the context of the entire charge, it is clear that the People were required to prove that the statements were voluntary beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, under the circumstances of this case, the court's refusal to amplify its charge as requested was harmless error ( cf. People v. Torres, 57 A.D.2d 1058; People v. Pepe, 21 A.D.2d 417, affd 18 N.Y.2d 955). We have considered defendants' other claims and find them to be without merit.