Opinion
2019–10711 Index No. 80031/2019
09-16-2020
In the Matter of William FORMICA, etc., Appellant, v. Thomas FARIELLO, etc., et al., Respondents.
John Z. Marangos, Staten Island, NY, for appellant. James E. Johnson, Corporation Counsel, New York, NY (Claude S. Platton and Scott Shorr of counsel), for respondents.
John Z. Marangos, Staten Island, NY, for appellant.
James E. Johnson, Corporation Counsel, New York, NY (Claude S. Platton and Scott Shorr of counsel), for respondents.
SHERI S. ROMAN, J.P., JEFFREY A. COHEN, ROBERT J. MILLER, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.
DECISION & JUDGMENT Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of Thomas Fariello, Acting Commissioner of the New York City Department of Buildings, dated March 12, 2019. The determination adopted the amended report and recommendations of an Administrative Law Judge dated March 11, 2019, made after a hearing, finding that the petitioner violated Administrative Code of the City of New York § 28–401.19(6) and (11) and Rules of City of New York Department of Environmental Protection (15 RCNY) former § 48–04, and revoked his general contractor and construction superintendent registrations.
ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.
The petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 seeking review of a determination of the Acting Commissioner of the New York City Department of Buildings, which adopted the amended report and recommendations of an Administrative Law Judge, made after a hearing, finding that the petitioner violated Administrative Code of the City of New York § 28–401.19(6) and (11) and Rules of City of New York Department of Environmental Protection (15 RCNY) former § 48–04, and revoked his general contractor and construction superintendent registrations.
Judicial review of an administrative determination made after a hearing required by law is limited to whether the determination is supported by substantial evidence (see CPLR 7803[4] ; 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v. State Div. of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d 176, 179–180, 408 N.Y.S.2d 54, 379 N.E.2d 1183 ; Matter of Fortuna v. City of White Plains, 170 A.D.3d 1011, 1012, 96 N.Y.S.3d 286 ). "Substantial evidence means more than a ‘mere scintilla of evidence,’ and the test of whether substantial evidence exists in a record is one of rationality, taking into account all the evidence on both sides" ( Matter of Solano v. City of Mount Vernon, 108 A.D.3d 676, 677, 969 N.Y.S.2d 528, quoting Matter of Stork Rest. v. Boland, 282 N.Y. 256, 273, 26 N.E.2d 247 ). "The courts may not weigh the evidence or reject the choice made by [an agency] where the evidence is conflicting and room for choice exists" ( Matter of Berenhaus v. Ward, 70 N.Y.2d 436, 444, 522 N.Y.S.2d 478, 517 N.E.2d 193 [internal quotation marks omitted] ).
Contrary to the petitioner's contention, the determination under review was supported by substantial evidence (see generally 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v. State Div. of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d at 181, 408 N.Y.S.2d 54, 379 N.E.2d 1183 ; Matter of Loiacono v. Demarzo, 72 A.D.3d 969, 970, 898 N.Y.S.2d 513 ). There is no basis to disturb the credibility determinations of the administrative law judge (see Matter of Malak v. State of New York, 116 A.D.3d 587, 588, 985 N.Y.S.2d 5 ).
ROMAN, J.P., COHEN, MILLER and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.