| People v Park Ave. Plastic Surgery, P.C. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 01808 [48 AD3d 367] |
| February 28, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| The People of the State of New York by Eliot Spitzer, As AttorneyGeneral of the State of New York, Respondent, v Park Avenue Plastic Surgery, P.C.,Respondent, and David Haim Ostad, Appellant. |
—[*1] Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, New York City (Laura R. Johnson of counsel), forrespondent.
Amended order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (NicholasFigueroa, J.), entered November 17, 2006, which granted the petition to permanently enjoinrespondents from engaging in the practice of medicine, disposing of any funds or assets untilsatisfaction of all financial obligations, engaging in any other business without posting a$200,000 bond, and destroying any records of said practice, and ordered restitution in the amountof $56,187.50 and payment of $4,500 in civil penalties, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Respondents were involved in the delivery of fraudulent and deceptive medical services.Ostad argues, pro se, that the court declined to consider his posthearing submissions. The factremains, however, that his own responses to petitioner's detailed charges, which were supportedby sworn statements, consisted merely of conclusory self-serving denials and, in one instance, theinvocation of his right against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment. Summarydetermination in petitioner's favor was warranted (see CPLR 409 [b]). Even though thecourt invited any additional information prior to the issuance of a ruling, it made clear that itwould not entertain postargument, ex parte communications, which instruction Ostad repeatedlyignored.
Ostad now argues that the court's determination must be set aside because the corporaterespondents were not represented by counsel. However, both corporate entities are wholly ownedby him, and he did not avail himself of the opportunity to retain counsel for them. Since acorporation is required, under most circumstances, to appear by counsel (CPLR 321 [a]), he lacksstanding to raise any arguments on behalf of these entities (see Hilton Apothecary v State ofNew York, 89 NY2d 1024 [1997]).
We have considered Ostad's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.Concur—Lippman, P.J., Friedman, Williams and Acosta, JJ.