Pelcher v. City of Rochester

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pelcher v. City of Rochester

86 A.D.2d 749, 447 N.Y.S.2d 548, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15315

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

DecidedJanuary 22, 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 86 A.D.2d 749 (Pelcher v. City of Rochester) 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

Pelcher v. City of Rochester, 86 A.D.2d 749, 447 N.Y.S.2d 548, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15315 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment [750]*750unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: In this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annul respondent’s determination which revoked petitioner’s amusement center license after a hearing, a substantial evidence question is raised sufficient to bring this proceeding within the purview of CPLR 7804 (subd [g]). Although Special Term confirmed respondent’s determination and dismissed the petition, we treat this appeal as a transfer of the petition to this court for review (see, e.g., Matter of Schultz v Tonawanda Housing Auth., 79 AD2d 843; Matter of Tipon v Appeals Bd. of Administrative Adjudication Bur., State of N. Y. Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 52 AD2d 1065, mot for lv to app den 40 NY2d 806; Matter of Hammerl v Mavis, 41 AD2d 724, affd 34 NY2d 579). A review of the entire record discloses that respondent’s determination is supported by substantial evidence and was not arbitrary or capricious (see Matter of Purdy v Kreisberg, 47 NY2d 354, 358; 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180-182; Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 230-232; Matter of Cortland-Clinton, Inc. v New York State Dept. of Health, 59 AD2d 228, 232). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Curran, J. — art 78.) Present — Simons, J. P., Hancock, Jr., Doerr, Denman and Schnepp, JJ.

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

Judgment [750]*750unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: In this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annul respondent’s determination which revoked petitioner’s amusement center license after a hearing, a substantial evidence question is raised sufficient to bring this proceeding within the purview of CPLR 7804 (subd [g]). Although Special Term confirmed respondent’s determination and dismissed the petition, we treat this appeal as a transfer of the petition to this court for review (see, e.g., Matter of Schultz v Tonawanda Housing Auth., 79 AD2d 843; Matter of Tipon v Appeals Bd. of Administrative Adjudication Bur., State of N. Y. Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 52 AD2d 1065, mot for lv to app den 40 NY2d 806; Matter of Hammerl v Mavis, 41 AD2d 724, affd 34 NY2d 579). A review of the entire record discloses that respondent’s determination is supported by substantial evidence and was not arbitrary or capricious (see Matter of Purdy v Kreisberg, 47 NY2d 354, 358; 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180-182; Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 230-232; Matter of Cortland-Clinton, Inc. v New York State Dept. of Health, 59 AD2d 228, 232). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Curran, J. — art 78.) Present — Simons, J. P., Hancock, Jr., Doerr, Denman and Schnepp, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 A.D.2d 749, 447 N.Y.S.2d 548, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15315, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pelcher-v-city-of-rochester-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack