Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

MATTER LOUIS MASCITELLI v. BOARD REGENTS STATE NEW YORK ET AL. (05/16/69)

SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, THIRD DEPARTMENT 1969.NY.41621 <http://www.versuslaw.com>; 299 N.Y.S.2d 1002; 32 A.D.2d 701 May 16, 1969 IN THE MATTER OF LOUIS MASCITELLI, PETITIONER,v.BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ET AL., RESPONDENTS Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Greenblott, JJ., concur in memorandum Per Curiam. Author: Per Curiam


Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Greenblott, JJ., concur in memorandum Per Curiam.

Author: Per Curiam

Proceeding under CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Board of Regents which revoked petitioner's license to practice medicine upon finding him guilty (1) of having been convicted of a crime, within the purview of section 6514 (subd. 2, par. [b]) of the Education Law, upon his plea of guilty of assault, third degree, in satisfaction of the first and second counts of an indictment charging abortion; and (2) of performing criminal abortions, within the purview of section 6514 (subd. 2, par [e]) of the Education Law, upon four women. The plea was properly "regarded as an admission of some unlawful physical or medical procedure in relation to the pregnant [women] named in the indictment". (Matter of Jones v. Allen, 4 A.D.2d 994; Matter of Zimmerman v. Board of Regents, 31 A.D.2d 560, mot. for lv. to app. den. 23 N.Y.2d 647; Matter of Ciofalo v. Board of Regents, 23 A.D.2d 926, mot. for lv. to app. den. 16 N.Y.2d 481, cert. den. 382 U.S. 942.) We find no basis for petitioner's reliance upon Spevack v. Klein (385 U.S. 511), which is in no way apposite, as authority to the contrary. The second specification -- that of performing abortions -- was fully proven by the adequate and competent testimony of the four women named in the specification. We find petitioner's contentions and assignments of error with respect thereto insubstantial and not such as to require discussion. We perceive no reason to disturb the board's discretion with regard to the measure of discipline imposed.

Disposition

 Determination confirmed, without costs.

19690516

© 1998 VersusLaw ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.