Summary
In Drago this court had to deal with what appeared to be a case of the aspect of blockbusting against which title 42 (§ 3604, subd. [e]) of the United States Code is directed, inducing panic selling in order to buy dwellings from white homeowners at low prices because of their fear and to resell at high prices to blacks.
Summary of this case from Matter of Butterly Green, Inc. v. LomenzoOpinion
March 15, 1971
Proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the CPLR to review respondent's determination dated September 8, 1970, which, after a hearing, suspended petitioner's real estate broker's license for a period of six months and further extended the suspension until such time as he shall submit a statement that he has terminated the use of the trade name O'Drago Realty. Petition granted to the extent that the determination is modified, on the law, by striking out so much thereof as extended the suspension beyond six months and until such time as petitioner shall submit a statement that he has terminated the use of the trade name O'Drago Realty; and, as so modified, determination confirmed, without costs. We are of the view that it was error for respondent's hearing officer to admit into evidence testimony concerning petitioner's method of operation and then to find that his method of operation was confusing to the public and inimical to their welfare. This testimony formed the basis for that part of the determination which we are striking out. Petitioner was not advised of such charges prior to the hearing. Section 441-e Real Prop. of the Real Property Law requires that the holder of a real estate broker's license shall be notified in writing of any charges made against him before a hearing to revoke or suspend his license. The party whose rights are being determined must be fully apprised of the claims of the opposing party ( Matter of Hecht v. Monaghan, 307 N.Y. 461, 470) and, more specifically, when proceedings involving a charge of untrustworthiness are brought, the charge should be definite so that the accused might know against what he has to defend ( Matter of Chiaino v. Lomenzo, 26 A.D.2d 469, 472). Rabin, P.J., Hopkins, Munder, Martuscello and Latham, JJ., concur.