Opinion
2002-09883.
Decided March 15, 2004.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent New York State Banking Department, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (O'Donoghue, J.), dated August 12, 2002, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
Rosenberg Pittinsky, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Laurence D. Pittinsky of counsel), for appellant.
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney-General, New York, N.Y. (Michelle Aronowitz and David Axinn of counsel), for respondents Elizabeth McCaul, Superintendent of Banks of the State of New York, and New York State Banking Department.
Davidoff Malito, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Mark E. Spund of counsel), for respondent Coqui Check Cashing Corp.
Before: SONDRA MILLER, J.P., DANIEL F. LUCIANO, THOMAS A. ADAMS, SANDRA L. TOWNES, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs.
The Supreme Court properly determined that the petitioner, a check cashing business, lacked standing to challenge the issuance of a license to the respondent Coqui Check Cashing Corp. (hereinafter Coqui), its competitor. Competitive injury, in and of itself, does not confer standing upon a petitioner unless such injury falls within the zone of interest of the controlling statute ( see Matter of Dairylea Coop. v. Walkley, 38 N.Y.2d 6, 9-12; Troy Ambulance Serv. v. New York State Dept. of Health, 260 A.D.2d 715, 716; Matter of Subway Check Cashing Serv. v. Considine, 158 A.D.2d 406; New York Hearing Aid Soc. v. Children's Hosp. Rehabilitation Center of Utica, 91 A.D.2d 333, 334; Matter of Our Lady of Good Counsel, R.C. Church School v. Ball, 45 A.D.2d 66, 70, affd, 38 N.Y.2d 780; Nostrand Check Cashing Co. v. Clark, 27 Misc.2d 799, 800, affd 13 A.D.2d 922). Under Banking Law § 369, no license shall be issued to an applicant for a location which is "closer than one thousand five hundred eighty-four feet (three-tenths of a mile) from an existing licensee." Since the petitioner is located more than three-tenths of a mile from the proposed location of Coqui, its alleged injury did not fall within the zone of interest of the statute. Furthermore, there is a rational basis for the determination of the New York State Banking Department that the issuance of a license to Coqui to permit the cashing of checks, would "promote the convenience and advantage of the area" ( see Banking Law § 369).
The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit.
S. MILLER, J.P., LUCIANO, ADAMS and TOWNES, JJ., concur.