Mastro v. Hudacs

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mastro v. Hudacs

224 A.D.2d 621, 638 N.Y.S.2d 681, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1401

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

DecidedFebruary 20, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 224 A.D.2d 621 (Mastro v. Hudacs) 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

Mastro v. Hudacs, 224 A.D.2d 621, 638 N.Y.S.2d 681, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1401 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Commissioner of Labor dated September 14, 1994, which adopted the findings of the Blaster Examining Board, made after a hearing, and suspended the Blaster’s Certificate of Competence of the petitioner.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

There is substantial evidence in the record to support the findings of the Blaster Examining Board, inter alia, that the insufficient stemming of the blast in question and the number of unloaded holes in the area that was blasted caused a flyrock to fall on a passing motorist severely injuring him. Under the facts of this case in which the petitioner’s competency as a blaster is at issue, a one year suspension of his Blaster’s Certificate of Competence and the requirement that he retake the blaster’s examination is reasonable and does not shock one’s sense of fairness (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 233). Santucci, J. P., Krausman, Goldstein and Florio, 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 of the respondent Commissioner of Labor dated September 14, 1994, which adopted the findings of the Blaster Examining Board, made after a hearing, and suspended the Blaster’s Certificate of Competence of the petitioner.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

There is substantial evidence in the record to support the findings of the Blaster Examining Board, inter alia, that the insufficient stemming of the blast in question and the number of unloaded holes in the area that was blasted caused a flyrock to fall on a passing motorist severely injuring him. Under the facts of this case in which the petitioner’s competency as a blaster is at issue, a one year suspension of his Blaster’s Certificate of Competence and the requirement that he retake the blaster’s examination is reasonable and does not shock one’s sense of fairness (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 233). Santucci, J. P., Krausman, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 A.D.2d 621, 638 N.Y.S.2d 681, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1401, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mastro-v-hudacs-nyappdiv-1996.