TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

De Luca v. Byrne

In the Matter of the Application of Dr. Gustavo G. E. De Luca, against James Byrne and Others, Being Members of the Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York

De Luca v. Byrne, 168 Misc. 841 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1938)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
New York Supreme Court · State Trial Courts
Decided
August 31, 1938
Judges
Schenck
Citations
168 Misc. 8416 N.Y.S.2d 7421938 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1937

Opinion of the Court — Schenck

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Schenck, J.

The petitioner seeks an order from the court directing the Regents to indorse his Italian license to practice medicine by virtue of section 51 of the State Education Law.

Prior to this application, petitioner indicated to the Regents that he desired to take a State examination for license to practice medicine in the State of New York. No application for such examination was filed, however, and in November, 1937, this proceeding was commenced. The Regents denied the application “ because the evidence submitted in his case is not satisfyingly sufficient to warrant such indorsement, but that such denial shall be without prejudice to the right of the applicant to continue taking the medical licensing examinations.”

Petitioner maintains that the Board has the power to indorse his Italian medical license without examination and maintains that the Regents unjustly discriminated against him and that its decision is contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment.

*842 The indorsement of petitioner’s license was entirely in the discretion of the Regents and unless the act of the Regents was discriminatory or capricious, this court will not interfere with the exercise of this discretion. Subdivision 3 of section 51 of the Education Law does not impose upon the Regents a mandatory duty and the indorsement is entirely permissive. If, upon the evidence before it, the Regents determined that the applicant fails to possess the essential qualifications required in this State, the Regents may deny such indorsement. This court may not substitute its judgment for that of a body which has discretionary power and which has passed upon the evidence submitted.

The application is denied, without costs.

Submit order accordingly.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1939: 119392026peak 1939 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Erlanger v. Regents of University256 A.D. 444 (1939)

Most recent

  1. Erlanger v. Regents of University256 A.D. 444 (1939)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list