IN RE CHARLES DACRUZ, pet-ap, v. BANKING DEPARTMENT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK res-res

9351. IN RE CHARLES DACRUZ, pet-ap, v. BANKING DEPARTMENT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK res-res — Westerman Ball Ederer Miller & Sharfstein, LLP, Uniondale (Richard F. Harrison of counsel), for ap — Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York (Mark H. Shawhan of counsel), for res — Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Cynthia S. Kern, J.), entered February 2, 2012, denying the petition to annul respondents' determination, dated October 4, 2011, which denied petitioner's application for a Mortgage Loan Originator (MLO) license, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

9351. IN RE CHARLES DACRUZ, pet-ap, v. BANKING DEPARTMENT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK res-res — Westerman Ball Ederer Miller & Sharfstein, LLP, Uniondale (Richard F. Harrison of counsel), for ap — Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York (Mark H. Shawhan of counsel), for res — Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Cynthia S. Kern, J.), entered February 2, 2012, denying the petition to annul respondents’ determination, dated October 4, 2011, which denied petitioner’s application for a Mortgage Loan Originator (MLO) license, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The determination that petitioner lacked the character and general fitness to hold an MLO license is rationally based on the record and not arbitrary and capricious (see Matter of Arrocha v. Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 93 NY2d 361, 363 [1999]; Matter of Gallo v. State of N.Y., Off. of Mental Retardation & Dev. Disabilities, 37 AD3d 984 [3d Dept 2007]). In January 2007, the National Association of Securities’ Dealers’ (NASD) National Adjudicatory Council affirmed an NASD hearing panel’s findings that, in 1998 and 1999, while working as a registered securities representative, petitioner failed to disclose sales incentive compensation and made baseless price predictions when recommending a security to customers, in violation of the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws and NASD rules. The Council permanently barred petitioner from working in the securities industry “in all capacities,” and ordered him to disgorge the $67,000 he had received from his financial misconduct.

IN RE CHARLES DACRUZ, pet-ap, v. BANKING DEPARTMENT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK res-res

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal