Rodriguez v. Appleton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rodriguez v. Appleton

189 A.D.2d 736

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

DecidedJanuary 28, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 189 A.D.2d 736 (Rodriguez v. Appleton) 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

Rodriguez v. Appleton, 189 A.D.2d 736 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of the respondent, Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Protection, dated May 31, 1991, which found petitioner guilty of failing to secure equipment, and imposing a $100 fine, is unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Carol Arber, J.], entered January 28, 1992) is dismissed, without costs and without disbursements.

Since the determination finding that petitioner violated two rules of the New York City Department of Environmental Protection by failing to properly secure a block and tackle is supported by substantial evidence, it may not be disturbed (Matter of Collins v Codd, 38 NY2d 269, 270-271). Concur— Carro, J. P., Milonas, Ellerin, Kupferman and Rubin, JJ.

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

Determination of the respondent, Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Protection, dated May 31, 1991, which found petitioner guilty of failing to secure equipment, and imposing a $100 fine, is unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Carol Arber, J.], entered January 28, 1992) is dismissed, without costs and without disbursements.

Since the determination finding that petitioner violated two rules of the New York City Department of Environmental Protection by failing to properly secure a block and tackle is supported by substantial evidence, it may not be disturbed (Matter of Collins v Codd, 38 NY2d 269, 270-271). Concur— Carro, J. P., Milonas, Ellerin, Kupferman and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

189 A.D.2d 736, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodriguez-v-appleton-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack