Greco v. Board of Examiners of Nursing Home Administrators, 59 N.Y.2d 709 (1983)

A prosecutor’s promise to intercede with a licensing board on behalf of a licensee in exchange for cooperation is not binding on the board, which is only required to give “weighty consideration” to the evidence of cooperation.

Summary

Greco, a nursing home administrator, had his license revoked for accepting unreported income and participating in kickback schemes. He argued that a Special Prosecutor promised to help him keep his license in exchange for his cooperation in investigating these schemes, but failed to do so. The Court of Appeals held that the licensing board was not bound by the prosecutor’s promise, but only required to give “weighty consideration” to Greco’s cooperation. The court emphasized that factual disputes regarding the agreement were resolved against Greco, and those findings were supported by evidence. The court also advised that future agreements of this nature be put in writing.

Facts

Petitioner Greco, a nursing home administrator, engaged in misconduct by accepting unreported income in addition to his salary and by participating in kickback schemes.
During an investigation by a Special Prosecutor, Greco allegedly agreed to cooperate in exchange for the prosecutor’s promise to intercede with the Board of Examiners to save his license.
Greco cooperated to some extent, but the prosecutor contended that he did not provide all promised assistance, specifically absenting himself during a crucial trial.

Procedural History

The Board of Examiners revoked Greco’s license after a hearing.
Greco appealed, arguing the prosecutor’s promise should have been honored.
The Appellate Division affirmed the Board’s decision.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s ruling, finding that the Board was not bound by the prosecutor’s promise and that its findings were supported by evidence.

Issue(s)

Whether the Board of Examiners was bound by the Special Prosecutor’s alleged promise to intercede on Greco’s behalf in exchange for his cooperation, such that the Board was required to save Greco’s license.

Holding

No, because under applicable law, the Board was not bound by the Special Prosecutor’s promises but was only required to give “weighty consideration” to the evidence of Greco’s cooperation, which it did.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals found that the terms of the bargain between Greco and the Special Prosecutor, and whether or not Greco fully aided the prosecutor as promised, presented questions of fact. The Board of Examiners resolved these issues against Greco, and the Appellate Division affirmed those findings. Because there was evidence in the record to support the Board’s findings, the Court of Appeals declined to disturb them. The court cited Matter of Chaipis v State Liq. Auth., 44 NY2d 57, 66, stating that the Board was only required to give “weighty consideration” to the evidence of Greco’s cooperation. The court noted that the record showed the Board did give such consideration but felt compelled to revoke Greco’s license due to his serious misconduct. The court also referenced People v Selikoff, 35 NY2d 227, 242-244 and advised that parties should reduce such agreements to writing in the future to avoid disputes. The court stated, “Under applicable law, respondent was not bound by the Special Prosecutor’s promises but was only required to give ‘weighty consideration’ to the evidence of petitioner’s cooperation”.