Aparicio v. Environmental Control Board

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Aparicio v. Environmental Control Board

83 A.D.3d 1054, 921 N.Y.S.2d 571

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 26, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 83 A.D.3d 1054 (Aparicio v. Environmental Control Board) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Aparicio v. Environmental Control Board, 83 A.D.3d 1054, 921 N.Y.S.2d 571 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CFLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York City Environmental Control Board dated September 24, 2009, finding, after a hearing, that the petitioner violated former section 27-118.1 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York by altering a dwelling for occupancy by more than the legally approved number of families and imposing a civil penalty, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Taylor, J.), dated June 8, 2010, which granted the petition and annulled the determination.

[1055]*1055Ordered that the appeal is dismissed and the judgment is vacated; and it is further,

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the Environmental Control Board of the City of New York.

Since a question of substantial evidence is involved, the proceeding should have been transferred to this Court pursuant to CPLR 7804 (g). Nevertheless, because the record is now before this Court, we will treat the matter as one initially transferred here and will review the administrative determination de novo (see Matter of Natiello v Carrion, 73 AD3d 1070 [2010]; Matter of Roth v Manhasset Union Free School Dist., 60 AD3d 771, 772 [2009]).

The determination of the Environmental Control Board of the City of New York affirming the Administrative Law Judge’s finding that the petitioner had converted the subject residence for occupancy by more than the approved number of families was supported by substantial evidence, and consistent with its prior precedent. Accordingly, the determination should be confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding dismissed (see Matter of R.I., Inc. v New York State Dept. of Labor, 72 AD3d 1098, 1099 [2010]; Matter of Brooklyn Resource Recovery, Inc. v City of New York, 11 AD3d 682, 683 [2004]; cf. Knight v Amelkin, 68 NY2d 975, 978 [1986]; Matter of Charles A. Field Delivery Serv. [Roberts], 66 NY2d 516, 522 [1985]). Mastro, J.P., Belen, Chambers and Roman, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In a proceeding pursuant to CFLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York City Environmental Control Board dated September 24, 2009, finding, after a hearing, that the petitioner violated former section 27-118.1 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York by altering a dwelling for occupancy by more than the legally approved number of families and imposing a civil penalty, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Taylor, J.), dated June 8, 2010, which granted the petition and annulled the determination.

[1055]*1055Ordered that the appeal is dismissed and the judgment is vacated; and it is further,

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the Environmental Control Board of the City of New York.

Since a question of substantial evidence is involved, the proceeding should have been transferred to this Court pursuant to CPLR 7804 (g). Nevertheless, because the record is now before this Court, we will treat the matter as one initially transferred here and will review the administrative determination de novo (see Matter of Natiello v Carrion, 73 AD3d 1070 [2010]; Matter of Roth v Manhasset Union Free School Dist., 60 AD3d 771, 772 [2009]).

The determination of the Environmental Control Board of the City of New York affirming the Administrative Law Judge’s finding that the petitioner had converted the subject residence for occupancy by more than the approved number of families was supported by substantial evidence, and consistent with its prior precedent. Accordingly, the determination should be confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding dismissed (see Matter of R.I., Inc. v New York State Dept. of Labor, 72 AD3d 1098, 1099 [2010]; Matter of Brooklyn Resource Recovery, Inc. v City of New York, 11 AD3d 682, 683 [2004]; cf. Knight v Amelkin, 68 NY2d 975, 978 [1986]; Matter of Charles A. Field Delivery Serv. [Roberts], 66 NY2d 516, 522 [1985]). Mastro, J.P., Belen, Chambers and Roman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 A.D.3d 1054, 921 N.Y.S.2d 571, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aparicio-v-environmental-control-board-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack