Dearborn Associates v. Environmental Control Board

144 A.D.2d 556, 534 N.Y.S.2d 417, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11904
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 21, 1988
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 144 A.D.2d 556 (Dearborn Associates 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
Dearborn Associates v. Environmental Control Board, 144 A.D.2d 556, 534 N.Y.S.2d 417, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11904 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York City Environmental Control Board which de[557]*557nied the petitioner’s request to open its default in appearing at a hearing on stated air pollution charges, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Shaw, J.), entered December 7, 1987, which, inter alia, dismissed the petition.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

We find that on the record before the Environmental Control Board, its decision to deny the petitioner’s application to open its default in appearing at a hearing had a rational basis and was not arbitrary and capricious (see, Matter of Fanelli v New York City Conciliation & Appeals Bd., 90 AD2d 756, affd 58 NY2d 952).

The petitioner had defaulted on three scheduled hearing dates and failed to submit documentary proof, as requested by the Environmental Control Board, of its newly raised claim that it did not own the premises at the time of the alleged violation. Such proof was only adduced upon the petitioner’s reply papers before the Supreme Court. As disposition of the matter under a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 is limited to the facts and record adduced before the agency when the administrative determination was rendered (see, Matter of Levine v New York State Liq. Auth., 23 NY2d 863), the Supreme Court properly did not consider the proof dehors the record (see, Matter of Fanelli v New York City Conciliation & Appeals Bd., supra, at 757). Mollen, P. J., Brown, Kunzeman, Weinstein and Kooper, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Seaview Assn. of Fire Is., NY, Inc. v. Town of Islip Zoning Bd. of Appeals
221 A.D.3d 717 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
Matter of 1245-36 St, LLC v. City of New York Envtl. Control Bd.
129 A.D.3d 732 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Daniello Carting Co. v. Environmental Control Board
84 A.D.3d 799 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Matter of Corrini v. Village of Scarsdale
2003 NY Slip Op 51553(U) (New York Supreme Court, Westchester County, 2003)
Town of Pleasant Valley v. Town of Poughkeepsie Planning Board
289 A.D.2d 583 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
New York State Supreme Court Officers Ass'n v. Crosson
150 Misc. 2d 964 (New York Supreme Court, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
144 A.D.2d 556, 534 N.Y.S.2d 417, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11904, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dearborn-associates-v-environmental-control-board-nyappdiv-1988.