Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Pietranico v. Ambach

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

Decided September 24, 1981Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Herlihy, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part).

Although we have no controversy with the majority’s finding with respect to professional misconduct, we dissent because we consider the respondents’ decision concerning punishment to be an aberration and shocking to one’s sense of fair play. It is seldom that punishment imposed by respondents requires the intervention of the court on the theory that the decision is arbitrary, capricious and lacks a rational basis, but this is not a perfect world and misjudgments and errors are committed by the best of authority. Such is the punishment…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Mosner v. AmbachAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1978
  2. Durante v. Board of RegentsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1979
  3. Donohue v. New York State PoliceNew York Court of Appeals · 1967

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

Powered by the Exa API