# Sreter v. Board of Examiners of Nursing Home Administrators

> Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · March 3, 1983 · 92 A.D.2d 973

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5860592

## Case

- **Full name:** In the Matter of Alexander C. Sreter v. Board of Examiners of Nursing Home Administrators, Department of Health, State of New York, Respondent In the Matter of Susan Sreter v. Board of Examiners of Nursing Home Administrators, Department of Health, State of New York
- **Court:** Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- **Decided:** March 3, 1983
- **Citations:** 92 A.D.2d 973; 460 N.Y.S.2d 648; 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17394
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Weiss
- **Judges:** Weiss
- **Cited by:** 5 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5860592

## Opinion text

Weiss, J.,
concurs in a separate memorandum. Weiss, J. (concurring). While in full agreement with the majority decision, I am constrained to write separately for the purpose of distinguishing this case from my dissent in the recent case of Matter of Greco v Board of Examiners of Nursing Home Administrators ( 91 AD2d 1108 ). Notwithstanding Sreter’s full and effective co-operatian, the critical fact remains that the special prosecutor made no promises other than to “discuss a possible plea agreement” at some future date. Clearly, then, this is not a Chaipis-type situation, but one in which the promisee voluntarily co-operated in the hopes of receiving leniency. Indeed, as the record demonstrates, Sreter received the full benefit in that instead of felony charges, he was permitted to plead to a reduced misdemeanor charge. Nor does Sreter’s reference to a written plea agreement, which is not in the record and thus not properly before this court, change the fact that his co-operation had already been rendered in the absence of a binding commitment from the special prosecutor. Accordingly, inasmuch as the record confirms that the special prosecutor did not represent that Sreter’s license would be preserved, and in view of the fact that his full co-operation is reflected in the penalty of license suspension instead of revocation, the determinations should be confirmed.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5860592. Public record. Not legal advice.