New York Supreme and/or Appellate Courts Appellate Division, First Department
March 20, 2012
IN RE ROBERT RAMPOLLA,
BANKING DEPARTMENT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, ET AL.,
Matter of Matter of Rampolla v Banking Dept. of the State of New York
Decided on March 20, 2012
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
Andrias, J.P., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Freedman, Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Jaffe, J.), entered January 25, 2011, denying the petition to annul respondent Banking Department's determination, dated March 23, 2010, which denied petitioner's application for a mortgage loan origination license, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Respondent's determination denying petitioner's application for a mortgage loan origination license was not arbitrary and capricious. Petitioner contends that in determining his application respondent should have considered the factors set forth in Correction Law § 753, which pertains to the application for a license or employment of a person previously convicted of a criminal offense (see Correction Law § 752). However, Banking Law § 599-e provides, "Notwithstanding any other law, the superintendent shall not issue a mortgage loan origination license" to any applicant who has been convicted of a felony that "involved an act of fraud [or] dishonesty," except that "the superintendent may, in his or her discretion, disregard a conviction where the felon has been pardoned" (subd [b][ii]). Correction Law § 753, "a prior general statute," must "yield to [Banking Law § 599-e,] a later specific or special statute" (see Matter of Niagara County v Power Auth. of State of N.Y., 82 AD3d 1597, 1601 , lv dismissed in part, denied in part, 17 NY3d 838  [internal quotation marks omitted]). While petitioner was granted a Certificate of Relief from Disabilities automatically imposed by law by reason of his felony conviction, pursuant to Correction Law § 701, he has not been pardoned. Therefore, the superintendent was required to deny his application.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: MARCH 20, 2012
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.