Opinion
November 16, 1961
Present — Bergan, P.J., Coon, Herlihy, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ.
This proceeding, pursuant to article 78 of the Civil Practice Act, seeks a review under subdivision 5 of section 515 Educ. of the Education Law, of the determination of the Board of Regents which revoked, annulled and cancelled the license of the petitioner to practice medicine. The petitioner does not deny his guilt as charged, but seeks review specifically of the punishment as being unduly harsh. Subdivision 5-a of section 1296 of the Civil Practice Act has given this court the power to review the punishment imposed by the Board of Regents. In Matter of Stolz v. Board of Regents ( 4 A.D.2d 361, 365), we construed the statute as embracing the following principle: "`the imposition in any instance of discipline beyond the statutory minimum of censure and reprimand must * * * be based either on the inherent nature of the respondent's violation of the disciplinary statute or on an evidentiary showing that the respondent's conduct justifies more than the minimum discipline.'" In the present case the petitioner does not question the finding of guilt pursuant to section 6514 (subd. 2, par. [a]) of the Education Law, charging fraud and deceit in the practice of medicine and paragraph (g) of subdivision 2 charging unprofessional conduct in the practice of medicine. The punishment specified in subdivision 2 is that "the license or registration * * * may be revoked, suspended or annulled or such practitioner reprimanded or disciplined". It is obvious that here the discipline imposed goes far beyond the statutory minimum. The petitioner contends that because of his co-operation with the Kings County Judicial Inquiry, and statements that consideration had been given some attorneys for such co-operation, that such action on his part should be considered mitigation as to his punishment. While we agree with this premise, suffice it to say that all of this information was considered by the Medical Grievance Committee, the Review Board and the Board of Regents, and in each instance it was unanimously recommended that the license of the petitioner to practice medicine be revoked. The record showed that the petitioner had issued approximately 200 false medical statements for services rendered and such is more than sufficient to sustain the finding of the Committee on Grievances "that the respondent [petitioner] is not fit to be entrusted with the responsibilities, duties and obligations of a practicing physician to the public". Under such circumstances, we will not interfere with the punishment imposed. Determination unanimously confirmed, without costs.