Matter of Nobel v. New York City Dept. of Bldgs.

2024 NY Slip Op 06659
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 31, 2024
DocketIndex No. 156585/22 Appeal No. 3364 Case No. 2023-03589
StatusPublished

This text of 2024 NY Slip Op 06659 (Matter of Nobel v. New York City Dept. of Bldgs.) 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 Nobel v. New York City Dept. of Bldgs., 2024 NY Slip Op 06659 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2024).

Opinion

Matter of Nobel v New York City Dept. of Bldgs. (2024 NY Slip Op 06659)
Matter of Nobel v New York City Dept. of Bldgs.
2024 NY Slip Op 06659
Decided on December 31, 2024
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided and Entered: December 31, 2024
Before: Renwick, P.J., González, Rodriguez, Higgitt, Rosado, JJ.

Index No. 156585/22 Appeal No. 3364 Case No. 2023-03589

[*1]In the Matter of David Nobel, Petitioner,

v

New York City Department of Buildings, Respondent.


Miklosey & Thompson, LLP, New York (Steven Edward Miklosey of counsel), for petitioner.

Muriel Goode-Trufant, Corporation Counsel, New York (Karin Wolfe of counsel), for respondent.



Determination of respondent New York City Department of Buildings, dated April 8, 2022, which, after a hearing, revoked petitioner's construction superintendent license, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order, Supreme Court, New York County [Richard Latin, J.], entered December 23, 2022) dismissed, without costs.

Substantial evidence in the record, including testimonial, documentary, and photographic evidence, supports the finding that petitioner offered a bribe to a Department of Buildings (DOB) inspector (see generally Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443 [1987]). Specifically, the record includes the inspector's contemporaneous complaint to DOB, his consistent testimony that petitioner attempted to give him cash to "take care of the . . . problem with the wiring," and the photos the inspector took of the cash and petitioner's ID. We find no basis for disturbing the Administrative Law Judge's credibility determinations (see Matter of Nelke v Department of Motor Vehs. Of the State of N.Y., 79 AD3d 433, 434 [1st Dept 2010]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: December 31, 2024



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

Related

Berenhaus v. Ward
517 N.E.2d 193 (New York Court of Appeals, 1987)
Nelke v. Department of Motor Vehicles
79 A.D.3d 433 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2024 NY Slip Op 06659, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-nobel-v-new-york-city-dept-of-bldgs-nyappdiv-2024.