Deli Food Grocery Corp. v. Silva

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Deli Food Grocery Corp. v. Silva

259 A.D.2d 345, 687 N.Y.S.2d 35, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2779

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

DecidedMarch 16, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 259 A.D.2d 345 (Deli Food Grocery Corp. v. Silva) 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

Deli Food Grocery Corp. v. Silva, 259 A.D.2d 345, 687 N.Y.S.2d 35, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2779 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth Thompson, Jr., J.), entered May 27, 1998, which denied petitioner’s application pursuant to CPLR article 78 for a judgment vacating an Order of Closure issued by respondent and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner’s claim that Administrative Code of the City of New York § 26-127.2 is unconstitutional by reason of its failure to provide for a judicial hearing before issuance of an Order of Closure is without merit. While due process entitled petitioner to adequate notice of the charges upon which the closure of its premises was sought and an opportunity to be heard in opposition thereto (see, e.g., United States v James Daniel Good Real [346]*346Prop., 510 US 43, 48; Matter of Beckman v Greentree Sec., 87 NY2d 566, 570), it did not entitle it to a hearing in a judicial forum (Mount St. Mary’s Hosp. v Catherwood, 26 NY2d 493, 505). Here, petitioner received the requisite notice and hearing, and subsequent to the Administrative Law Judge’s determination upon the hearing record, that petitioner’s grocery-store was illegally situated in a residentially zoned district, sought and obtained administrative review of the adverse determination. Accordingly, the demands of due process were more than satisfied. Petitioner’s claim that the Administrative Law Judge was biased against it is without support in the record. Nor is there merit to petitioner’s argument that the aforesaid Administrative Code provision is unconstitutionally over-broad in its definition of what constitutes a public nuisance (see, City of New York v Bilynn Realty Corp., 118 AD2d 511).

We have reviewed petitioner’s other claims and find them to be unavailing. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Tom and Lerner, JJ.

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

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth Thompson, Jr., J.), entered May 27, 1998, which denied petitioner’s application pursuant to CPLR article 78 for a judgment vacating an Order of Closure issued by respondent and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner’s claim that Administrative Code of the City of New York § 26-127.2 is unconstitutional by reason of its failure to provide for a judicial hearing before issuance of an Order of Closure is without merit. While due process entitled petitioner to adequate notice of the charges upon which the closure of its premises was sought and an opportunity to be heard in opposition thereto (see, e.g., United States v James Daniel Good Real [346]*346Prop., 510 US 43, 48; Matter of Beckman v Greentree Sec., 87 NY2d 566, 570), it did not entitle it to a hearing in a judicial forum (Mount St. Mary’s Hosp. v Catherwood, 26 NY2d 493, 505). Here, petitioner received the requisite notice and hearing, and subsequent to the Administrative Law Judge’s determination upon the hearing record, that petitioner’s grocery-store was illegally situated in a residentially zoned district, sought and obtained administrative review of the adverse determination. Accordingly, the demands of due process were more than satisfied. Petitioner’s claim that the Administrative Law Judge was biased against it is without support in the record. Nor is there merit to petitioner’s argument that the aforesaid Administrative Code provision is unconstitutionally over-broad in its definition of what constitutes a public nuisance (see, City of New York v Bilynn Realty Corp., 118 AD2d 511).

We have reviewed petitioner’s other claims and find them to be unavailing. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Tom and Lerner, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D.2d 345, 687 N.Y.S.2d 35, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2779, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/deli-food-grocery-corp-v-silva-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack