Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In Re Manuel Aranda, Petitioner-Appellant, -- the v. New York City Department of Buildings

December 4, 2012

IN RE MANUEL ARANDA, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, -- THE
v.
NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF BUILDINGS, ET AL., RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS.



Matter of Matter of Aranda v New York City Dept. of Bldgs.

Decided on December 4, 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.

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 AD3d 520, 522 [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 AD2d 688 [1st Dept 1985], affd 66 NY2d 994 [1985]).

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

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: DECEMBER 4, 2012

CLERK

20121204

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.