## Facts

- Two consolidated Article 78 proceedings challenged professional license revocations based on sexual misconduct with patients.
- Jay Block, a licensed practical nurse and registered professional nurse, was charged with professional misconduct for engaging in sexual intercourse with a 16-year-old psychiatric inpatient during a several-month period and continuing the relationship for months after her discharge; additional allegations included verbal harassment and negligent nursing care.
- A State Education Department hearing panel sustained the misconduct charges and recommended revocation of both of Block’s nursing licenses; the Regents Review Committee and Commissioner of Education adopted the recommendation.
- Norman Ackerman, a licensed psychiatrist, was charged with fraud, gross negligence, and incompetence for inducing two patients to engage in prolonged sexual and lewd conduct and for improper drug-related conduct.
- A medical conduct hearing panel sustained charges against Ackerman and recommended permanent revocation of his medical license; the administrative review bodies upheld the determination.
- In both matters, the Appellate Division confirmed the administrative determinations; both petitioners appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
- A central objection in both cases was that the administrative charges alleged extended periods of misconduct but did not specify exact dates.

## Issues

1. Whether due process required administrative professional-discipline charges to plead specific dates of alleged misconduct to provide adequate notice.
2. Whether the Commissioner of Education could discipline a nurse for sexual conduct occurring after a patient’s discharge when the conduct arose from the professional relationship.
3. Whether the statutory and regulatory review scheme impermissibly limited judicial authority to decide whether the charges satisfied due process.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division judgments and upheld the license revocations.
- The Court held that, given the nature of the allegations and surrounding circumstances, the charges were sufficiently specific to satisfy due process despite lacking exact dates.
- The Court held that disciplinary authority extended to Block’s post-discharge sexual relationship with the former patient because it was tied to the professional relationship and could constitute professional misconduct.
- The Court rejected the claim that the review framework insulated due process questions from judicial scrutiny; constitutional challenges remained reviewable in Article 78 proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Due process in administrative disciplinary proceedings does not require criminal-pleading specificity; charges are adequate if they are reasonably specific, considering all relevant circumstances, to inform the respondent and permit preparation of a defense.
- When alleged misconduct is continuing rather than isolated, and precise dating is difficult (including because of a complainant’s condition and delayed reporting), pleading approximate time ranges may satisfy notice requirements.
- Sexual conduct with a patient, and in appropriate circumstances with a recent former patient when connected to the professional relationship, may be treated as professional misconduct warranting severe discipline, including revocation.
- Article 78 review permits courts to consider constitutional claims and other legal errors in administrative discipline, including whether notice satisfied due process.

## Conclusion

The court upheld revocations of nursing and medical licenses, holding that administrative misconduct charges may allege approximate time periods without exact dates when reasonably specific under the circumstances, and that licensing authorities may discipline sexual conduct closely tied to the professional relationship, including conduct continuing after discharge, with constitutional claims remaining subject to judicial review.


Block v. Ambach, 537 N.E.2d 181 (N.Y. 1989)