Bartolini Landscaping Inc. v. Brown

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bartolini Landscaping Inc. v. Brown

74 A.D.3d 1060, 902 N.Y.S.2d 400

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

DecidedJune 15, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 74 A.D.3d 1060 (Bartolini Landscaping Inc. v. Brown) 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

Bartolini Landscaping Inc. v. Brown, 74 A.D.3d 1060, 902 N.Y.S.2d 400 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceed[1061]*1061ing pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Westchester County Department of Consumer Affairs, dated March 27, 2009, which, after a hearing, found that the petitioner violated Administrative Code of the County of Westchester § 863.319 (1) (f), (c), § 863.111 (1) (a) and § 863.61, and imposed a civil penalty in the sum of $4,000.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

Judicial review of a determination rendered by an administrative body after a quasi-judicial hearing required by law is limited to whether the determination is supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Halperin v City of New Rochelle, 24 AD3d 768, 769-770 [2005]; CPLR 7803 [4]). Here, the challenged determination was supported by substantial evidence in the record, that is, “such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact” (300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180 [1978]).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, J.P., Covello, Belen and Hall, JJ., concur.

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

Proceed[1061]*1061ing pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Westchester County Department of Consumer Affairs, dated March 27, 2009, which, after a hearing, found that the petitioner violated Administrative Code of the County of Westchester § 863.319 (1) (f), (c), § 863.111 (1) (a) and § 863.61, and imposed a civil penalty in the sum of $4,000.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

Judicial review of a determination rendered by an administrative body after a quasi-judicial hearing required by law is limited to whether the determination is supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Halperin v City of New Rochelle, 24 AD3d 768, 769-770 [2005]; CPLR 7803 [4]). Here, the challenged determination was supported by substantial evidence in the record, that is, “such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact” (300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180 [1978]).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, J.P., Covello, Belen and Hall, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

74 A.D.3d 1060, 902 N.Y.S.2d 400, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bartolini-landscaping-inc-v-brown-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack