From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Aranda v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Buildings

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Dec 4, 2012
101 A.D.3d 412 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)

Opinion

2012-12-4

In re Manuel ARANDA, Petitioner–Appellant, v. The NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF BUILDINGS, et al., Respondents–Respondents.

Law Offices of Gregory T. Chillino, New York (Christopher M. Slowik of counsel), for appellant. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Elizabeth I. Freedman of counsel), for respondents.



Law Offices of Gregory T. Chillino, New York (Christopher M. Slowik of counsel), for appellant. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Elizabeth I. Freedman of counsel), for respondents.
SAXE, J.P., FRIEDMAN, ACOSTA, RENWICK, FREEDMAN, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Cynthia S. Kern, J.), entered October 14, 2011, which denied the petition brought pursuant to CPLR Article 78 seeking to reverse and annul respondent New York City Department of Building's (DOB) determination denying petitioner's application for a Master Fire Suppression Piping Contractor's license and dismissed the proceeding brought, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

DOB's determination denying petitioner's application for reinstatement of his fire suppression license without retaking the examination had a rational basis and was not arbitrary and capricious ( see Arbuiso v. New York City Dept. of Bldgs., 64 A.D.3d 520, 522, 883 N.Y.S.2d 216 [1st Dept. 2009] ). Although petitioner submitted six notarized letters from clients in support of the fire suppression work he performed from 2007 to 2010, his proof of supervision on enumerated projects was markedly deficient ( see Administrative Code of the City of New York § 28–401.13). Only one of the six letters indicated that it was from a licensed Master Fire Suppression Piping Contractor, and did not indicate the description of the work petitioner performed, petitioner's daily responsibilities or the dates of his employment ( see e.g. Matter of Reingold v. Koch, 111 A.D.2d 688, 490 N.Y.S.2d 508 [1st Dept. 1985],affd.66 N.Y.2d 994, 499 N.Y.S.2d 395, 489 N.E.2d 1297 [1985] ).

We have considered petitioner's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.


Summaries of

Aranda v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Buildings

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Dec 4, 2012
101 A.D.3d 412 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
Case details for

Aranda v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Buildings

Case Details

Full title:In re Manuel ARANDA, Petitioner–Appellant, v. The NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Dec 4, 2012

Citations

101 A.D.3d 412 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
955 N.Y.S.2d 27
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 8250

Citing Cases

Ramirez v. Dep't of Citywide Admin. Servs.

Petitioner's testimony at the hearing did not remedy this deficiency, as petitioner revealed that the…

Ramirez v. Dep't of Citywide Admin. Servs.

Petitioner's application attests to the dates he worked for Gentile, but Gentile's lack of corroboration and…