Matter of Christian v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Christian v. City of New York

139 A.D.3d 457, 29 N.Y.S.3d 792

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

DecidedMay 10, 2016

Docket1091 102788/12

StatusPublished

This text of 139 A.D.3d 457 (Matter of Christian v. City of New York) 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

Matter of Christian v. City of New York, 139 A.D.3d 457, 29 N.Y.S.3d 792 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Wooten, J.), entered November 10, 2015, granting the petition to annul certain amendments to 1 RCNY 104-09, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter an amended judgment accordingly.

Petitioner challenges certain amendments to 1 RCNY 104-09 regarding the licensing of crane operators. In particular, petitioner challenges provisions that effectively dispensed with requirements, as to class A licenses, that certain qualifying experience be acquired in New York City and under the supervision of New York City-licensed operators, as well as provisions that eliminated, for both class A and class B license applicants, a city-administered examination, in favor of national certification.

*458 Petitioner lacks standing to make these challenges. The safety-related harm that it predicts will result from the amendments is too speculative to show “ ‘injury in fact,’ meaning that [petitioner] will actually be harmed by the challenged [amendments]” (New York State Assn. of Nurse Anesthetists v Novello, 2 NY3d 207, 211 [2004]). As in Nurse Anesthetists, the record shows nothing more than that the injury predicted “might [ ], or might not” result from the amendments (id. at 214).

In any event the Department of Buildings acted rationally in adopting the amendments which were not inconsistent with its prior position.

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Renwick, Saxe, Gische and Kahn, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Wooten, J.), entered November 10, 2015, granting the petition to annul certain amendments to 1 RCNY 104-09, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter an amended judgment accordingly.

Petitioner challenges certain amendments to 1 RCNY 104-09 regarding the licensing of crane operators. In particular, petitioner challenges provisions that effectively dispensed with requirements, as to class A licenses, that certain qualifying experience be acquired in New York City and under the supervision of New York City-licensed operators, as well as provisions that eliminated, for both class A and class B license applicants, a city-administered examination, in favor of national certification.

*458 Petitioner lacks standing to make these challenges. The safety-related harm that it predicts will result from the amendments is too speculative to show “ ‘injury in fact,’ meaning that [petitioner] will actually be harmed by the challenged [amendments]” (New York State Assn. of Nurse Anesthetists v Novello, 2 NY3d 207, 211 [2004]). As in Nurse Anesthetists, the record shows nothing more than that the injury predicted “might [ ], or might not” result from the amendments (id. at 214).

In any event the Department of Buildings acted rationally in adopting the amendments which were not inconsistent with its prior position.

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Renwick, Saxe, Gische and Kahn, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 A.D.3d 457, 29 N.Y.S.3d 792, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-christian-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack