|
Well its final!
Mazzarelli, J.P., DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels, Feinman, Gische, JJ.
13887 In re George Zouvelos, Index 101160/13
Petitioner,
-against-
The New York State Department
of Financial Services,
Respondent.
_________________________
George Zouvelos, petitioner pro se.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York (Andrew Kent of
counsel), for respondent.
_________________________
Determination of respondent, dated August 5, 2013, which,
after a hearing, revoked petitioner's license as a bail bondsman,
unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding
brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by
order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Michael D. Stallman,
J.], entered September 11, 2013), dismissed, without costs.
Respondent’s determination is supported by substantial
evidence establishing that petitioner committed serious
misconduct in connection with his bail-bond business (see Matter
of American Tel. & Tel. Co. v State Tax Commn., 61 NY2d 393, 400
[1984]; Insurance Law § 6802[k]). In particular, the evidence
supports, among other things, the findings that petitioner
operated Spartan Bail Bonds without a license in violation of
Insurance Law § 6802(a), falsely stated on his application for a
bail-bond-agent license for Spartan Bail Bonds that he was not
presently charged with a crime when criminal charges were pending
that subsequently resulted in petitioner pleading guilty to
criminal possession of a weapon and attempt to obstruct the
arresting officers (see Insurance Law § 6802[k][3]), and that he
engaged in extensive misconduct “demonstrat[ing] his incompetency
or untrustworthiness to act as a licensee” (Insurance Law
§ 6802[k][6]). The record further supports the finding that
petitioner demonstrated his untrustworthiness and incompetence
through numerous other acts of misconduct and by giving
conflicting and unpersuasive justifications for his actions in an
attempt to minimize or obscure his culpability.
Finally, based on the foregoing and in light of the record
evidence indicating that petitioner abused his position of power
over criminal defendants and their indemnitors by, among other
things, refusing to timely return substantial collateral due them
and imposing excessive and unsubstantiated fees, the penalty of
license revocation does not shock the conscience (see Matter of
Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns
of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222,
233-34 [1974]).
We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find
them unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: JANUARY 6, 2015
_______________________
CLERK
|
