Eastern Exterminating Co. v. Williams

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Eastern Exterminating Co. v. Williams

109 A.D.2d 864, 487 N.Y.S.2d 59, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47381

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

DecidedMarch 25, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 109 A.D.2d 864 (Eastern Exterminating Co. v. Williams) 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

Eastern Exterminating Co. v. Williams, 109 A.D.2d 864, 487 N.Y.S.2d 59, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47381 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination by respondent dated June 21, 1984, made after a hearing, which revoked petitioners’ registration and certification for the commercial application of pesticides.

Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, with costs.

After a hearing, respondent found that petitioners violated State regulations by misapplying the pesticide chlordane in 16 separate instances in which homes in Nassau and Suffolk Counties became contaminated as a result. The respondent Commissioner thereafter revoked the registration and certification of petitioners for commercial pesticide application.

Substantial evidence supports the determination of the Commissioner (Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222). The penalty of revocation was not disproportionate in light of the serious risk to public health and safety caused by petitioners’ irresponsible and reckless conduct (Matter of Pell v Board of [865]*865Educ., supra). Petitioners’ procedural objections are without merit. Mangano, J. P., Brown, Rubin and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

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

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination by respondent dated June 21, 1984, made after a hearing, which revoked petitioners’ registration and certification for the commercial application of pesticides.

Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, with costs.

After a hearing, respondent found that petitioners violated State regulations by misapplying the pesticide chlordane in 16 separate instances in which homes in Nassau and Suffolk Counties became contaminated as a result. The respondent Commissioner thereafter revoked the registration and certification of petitioners for commercial pesticide application.

Substantial evidence supports the determination of the Commissioner (Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222). The penalty of revocation was not disproportionate in light of the serious risk to public health and safety caused by petitioners’ irresponsible and reckless conduct (Matter of Pell v Board of [865]*865Educ., supra). Petitioners’ procedural objections are without merit. Mangano, J. P., Brown, Rubin and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

109 A.D.2d 864, 487 N.Y.S.2d 59, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47381, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eastern-exterminating-co-v-williams-nyappdiv-1985.