C.I. Contracting Corp. v. New York Business Integrity Commission

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

C.I. Contracting Corp. v. New York Business Integrity Commission

128 A.D.3d 450, 9 N.Y.S.3d 36

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

DecidedMay 7, 2015

Docket15041 100701/13

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 128 A.D.3d 450 (C.I. Contracting Corp. v. New York Business Integrity Commission) 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

C.I. Contracting Corp. v. New York Business Integrity Commission, 128 A.D.3d 450, 9 N.Y.S.3d 36 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Margaret A. Chan, J.), entered January 15, 2014, denying the petition to annul the determination of respondent New York City Business Integrity Commission (BIC), dated January 14, 2013, which denied petitioner’s application for an exemption from licensing requirements and a registration to operate a trade waste business, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

BIC has broad discretion to grant or refuse licensure or registration based upon its evaluation of an applicant’s “good character, honesty and integrity” (Administrative Code of City of NY § 16-509 [a]; see Canal Carting, Inc. v City of N.Y. Bus. Integrity Commn., 66 AD3d 609, 610 [1st Dept 2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 710 [2010]). Here, BIC’s denial of petitioner’s application had a rational basis as it was based, inter alia, on the criminal conviction for second-degree manslaughter of the former company of petitioner’s principal. Petitioner’s principal *451 was a controlling shareholder of that entity and, as such, had a responsibility to ensure that the company performed its work safely and within the bounds of law.

BIC was also entitled to consider petitioner’s history of unlicensed hauling, environmental violations, and untruthful statements on its application, in addition to the unpaid taxes and labor law violations attributed to petitioner’s principal and his former company (see e.g. Matter of Breeze Carting Corp. v City of New York, 52 AD3d 424 [1st Dept 2008]). Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the investigations were not reopened, and no final decision was questioned. Rather, BIC properly considered the fact of the criminal and administrative charges that are part of the background of petitioner’s principal.

We have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Friedman, J.R, Acosta, Richter and Gische, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Margaret A. Chan, J.), entered January 15, 2014, denying the petition to annul the determination of respondent New York City Business Integrity Commission (BIC), dated January 14, 2013, which denied petitioner’s application for an exemption from licensing requirements and a registration to operate a trade waste business, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

BIC has broad discretion to grant or refuse licensure or registration based upon its evaluation of an applicant’s “good character, honesty and integrity” (Administrative Code of City of NY § 16-509 [a]; see Canal Carting, Inc. v City of N.Y. Bus. Integrity Commn., 66 AD3d 609, 610 [1st Dept 2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 710 [2010]). Here, BIC’s denial of petitioner’s application had a rational basis as it was based, inter alia, on the criminal conviction for second-degree manslaughter of the former company of petitioner’s principal. Petitioner’s principal *451 was a controlling shareholder of that entity and, as such, had a responsibility to ensure that the company performed its work safely and within the bounds of law.

BIC was also entitled to consider petitioner’s history of unlicensed hauling, environmental violations, and untruthful statements on its application, in addition to the unpaid taxes and labor law violations attributed to petitioner’s principal and his former company (see e.g. Matter of Breeze Carting Corp. v City of New York, 52 AD3d 424 [1st Dept 2008]). Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the investigations were not reopened, and no final decision was questioned. Rather, BIC properly considered the fact of the criminal and administrative charges that are part of the background of petitioner’s principal.

We have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Friedman, J.R, Acosta, Richter and Gische, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 A.D.3d 450, 9 N.Y.S.3d 36, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ci-contracting-corp-v-new-york-business-integrity-commission-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack