Podolsky v. Cuomo — 52 N.Y.2d 1059

Majority

p. 1059

In the Matter of Abraham Podolsky et al., Appellants, v Mario M. Cuomo, as Secretary of State of the State of New York, et al., Respondents.

Argued February 19, 1981;

decided February 26, 1981

p. 1060

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Scott E. Molten for appellant.

Robert Abrams, Attorney-General (Arlene R. Silverman and Shirley Adelson Siegel of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The judgment of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

The record reveals that there was substantial evidence presented before the hearing officer to support the conclusion that petitioner Podolsky, a real estate broker, initiated demonstrably baseless lawsuits to recover commissions from alleged clients. There also was substantial evidence indicating that petitioner Peldman wrongfully demanded commissions through a baseless lawsuit in violation of section 442-a of the Real Property Law. Accordingly, there was adequate support for respondent’s conclusion that petitioners demonstrated untrustworthiness to act as a real estate broker or salesperson (Real Property Law, § 441-c, subd 1).

We find baseless petitioners’ assertion that they were

p. 1061

denied due process by various alleged infirmities in the hearing process.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur in memorandum.

Judgment affirmed.