Maroti v. Hirst

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Maroti v. Hirst

91 A.D.3d 541, 937 N.Y.2d 48

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 24, 2012·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

The determination to deny petitioner’s application for a master rigger’s license had a rational basis. The record demonstrates that petitioner failed to present evidence that he gained the requisite qualifying experience under the direct and continuing supervision of a master rigger duly licensed in the City of New York for five of the seven years prior to the filing of the application (see Matter of Auringer v Department of Citywide Admin. Servs. of City of N.Y., 28 AD3d 381 [2006]; Administrative Code of City of NY §§ 28-404.1, 28-404.3.1).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.P, Friedman, DeGrasse, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

The determination to deny petitioner’s application for a master rigger’s license had a rational basis. The record demonstrates that petitioner failed to present evidence that he gained the requisite qualifying experience under the direct and continuing supervision of a master rigger duly licensed in the City of New York for five of the seven years prior to the filing of the application (see Matter of Auringer v Department of Citywide Admin. Servs. of City of N.Y., 28 AD3d 381 [2006]; Administrative Code of City of NY §§ 28-404.1, 28-404.3.1).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.P, Friedman, DeGrasse, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Maroti v. Hirst, 91 A.D.3d 541, 937 N.Y.2d 48 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

91 A.D.3d 541 (Maroti v. Hirst) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related