Legal Opinion · Dissent

Friedman v. Paterson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided July 22, 1982Published

1Dissent

Mikoll, J. (dissenting).

I respectfully dissent. Charges of incompetency and untrustworthiness must be clear and definite so that an accused knows what he has to defend (Matter of Urban Realty v Cuomo, 72 AD2d 947; Partridge v Lomenzo, 37 AD2d 180). Though the complaint against petitioner gave sufficient notice of the section of the Real Property Law involved and upon which the charges were based, the complaint did not give petitioner adequate notice of the actions of petitioner which formed the basis of the findings against petitioner. The complaint recited the existence of the irrevocable…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Partridge v. LomenzoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1971
  2. John Urban Realty v. CuomoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1979

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API