People Spitzer v. Park Avenue Plastic Surgery, P.C.People Spitzer v. Park Avenue Plastic Surgery, P.C.
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 fact remains, however, that his own responses to petitioner‘s detailed charges, which were supported by sworn statements, consisted merely of conclusory self-serving denials and, in one instance, the invocation of his right against self-incrimination under the
Ostad now argues that the court‘s determination must be set aside because the corporate respondents were not represented by counsel. However, both corporate entities are wholly owned by him, and he did not avail himself of the opportunity to retain counsel for them. Since a corporation is required, under most circumstances, to appear by counsel (
We have considered Ostad‘s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Lippman, P.J., Friedman, Williams and Acosta, JJ.