Application of Cianelli (In the Matter of Andrew F. Cianelli)16 A.D.2d 352
PROCEDURAL HISTORY: Appellant Secretary of State sought review of the order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, in Bronx County (New York), which in an Article 78 proceeding annulled the secretary's determinations that revoked respondent attorney's real estate licenses, and which directed a new trial. The determinations were annulled after a finding that the secretary had no jurisdiction over an attorney.
FACTS:
-The court found that in the determination of the issues the presence or absence of the attorney from the city became a matter of some significance, and that no opportunity was afforded the attorney to examine or contest a report submitted to the secretary.
-The court held that the propriety of the receipt of the report and the weight given it by the trial officer presented questions of competency and sufficiency of proof and, hence, Special Term's refusal to transfer was error.
-The court found that the concept of a trial was violated by the ex parte receipt of evidence regardless of the effect that the hearing officer deemed it to have had.
HOLDING:
-The court held that as a broker, the attorney was privileged to do things that he could not do as an attorney, but that because the attorney elected to obtain a license and to act pursuant to it, he was subject to the secretary's jurisdiction over licenses.
-Such jurisdiction continued despite the fact that revocation of the license would not have affected those rights that the attorney may have exercised in regard to real estate transactions by virtue of his being an attorney.
ANALYSIS:
-The court found that in the determination of the issues the presence or absence of the attorney from the city became a matter of some significance, and that no opportunity was afforded the attorney to examine or contest a report submitted to the secretary.
-The court held that the propriety of the receipt of the report and the weight given it by the trial officer presented questions of competency and sufficiency of proof and, hence, Special Term's refusal to transfer was error.
-The court found that the concept of a trial was violated by the ex parte receipt of evidence regardless of the effect that the hearing officer deemed it to have had.
RULES:
An attorney can act as a broker without a license.
CONCLUSION: The court vacated that part of the order that annulled the revocation of the attorney's real estate licenses, and remanded for a new hearing.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
PROCEDURAL HISTORY: Appellant Secretary of State sought review of the order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, in Bronx County (New York), which in an Article 78 proceeding annulled the secretary's determinations that revoked respondent attorney's real estate licenses, and which directed a new trial. The determinations were annulled after a finding that the secretary had no jurisdiction over an attorney.
FACTS:
-The court found that in the determination of the issues the presence or absence of the attorney from the city became a matter of some significance, and that no opportunity was afforded the attorney to examine or contest a report submitted to the secretary.
-The court held that the propriety of the receipt of the report and the weight given it by the trial officer presented questions of competency and sufficiency of proof and, hence, Special Term's refusal to transfer was error.
-The court found that the concept of a trial was violated by the ex parte receipt of evidence regardless of the effect that the hearing officer deemed it to have had.
HOLDING:
-The court held that as a broker, the attorney was privileged to do things that he could not do as an attorney, but that because the attorney elected to obtain a license and to act pursuant to it, he was subject to the secretary's jurisdiction over licenses.
-Such jurisdiction continued despite the fact that revocation of the license would not have affected those rights that the attorney may have exercised in regard to real estate transactions by virtue of his being an attorney.
ANALYSIS:
-The court found that in the determination of the issues the presence or absence of the attorney from the city became a matter of some significance, and that no opportunity was afforded the attorney to examine or contest a report submitted to the secretary.
-The court held that the propriety of the receipt of the report and the weight given it by the trial officer presented questions of competency and sufficiency of proof and, hence, Special Term's refusal to transfer was error.
-The court found that the concept of a trial was violated by the ex parte receipt of evidence regardless of the effect that the hearing officer deemed it to have had.
RULES:
An attorney can act as a broker without a license.
CONCLUSION: The court vacated that part of the order that annulled the revocation of the attorney's real estate licenses, and remanded for a new hearing.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment