Rossi v. New York State Office of Children & Family Services

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rossi v. New York State Office of Children & Family Services

95 A.D.3d 705, 945 N.Y.S.2d 242

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

DecidedMay 24, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 95 A.D.3d 705 (Rossi v. New York State Office of Children & Family Services) 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

Rossi v. New York State Office of Children & Family Services, 95 A.D.3d 705, 945 N.Y.S.2d 242 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of respondent, dated April 2, 2010, after an evidentiary hearing, which denied renewal of petitioner Wendy Eugene’s license to operate a group family day care in the basement of her residence, and revoked petitioners’ license to operate a group family day care on the first floor of the same premises, 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 [Richard F. Braun, J.], entered Jan. 18, 2011), dismissed, without costs.

The agency’s determination was supported by substantial evidence (see generally 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180-181 [1978]). The record demonstrates that the ceiling height in the basement was less than seven feet in some areas, an undisputed violation of the applicable building code (see Administrative Code of City of NY § 28-1208.2). The record also supports the finding that the basement and first floor of the residence, which were connected by an internal staircase, constituted one dwelling unit, and that [706]*706applicable regulations prohibited two group family day care programs from operating in one unit (18 NYCRR 416.15 [a] [20] [i]).

Petitioners had no vested right to continue to operate the programs since they were required to remain in compliance with all applicable regulations (see 18 NYCRR 416.3 [Z]). Moreover, “estoppel is unavailable against a public agency” (see Granada Bldgs, v City of Kingston, 58 NY2d 705, 708 [1982]). Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Andrias, Saxe, DeGrasse and Román, JJ.

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

Determination of respondent, dated April 2, 2010, after an evidentiary hearing, which denied renewal of petitioner Wendy Eugene’s license to operate a group family day care in the basement of her residence, and revoked petitioners’ license to operate a group family day care on the first floor of the same premises, 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 [Richard F. Braun, J.], entered Jan. 18, 2011), dismissed, without costs.

The agency’s determination was supported by substantial evidence (see generally 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180-181 [1978]). The record demonstrates that the ceiling height in the basement was less than seven feet in some areas, an undisputed violation of the applicable building code (see Administrative Code of City of NY § 28-1208.2). The record also supports the finding that the basement and first floor of the residence, which were connected by an internal staircase, constituted one dwelling unit, and that [706]*706applicable regulations prohibited two group family day care programs from operating in one unit (18 NYCRR 416.15 [a] [20] [i]).

Petitioners had no vested right to continue to operate the programs since they were required to remain in compliance with all applicable regulations (see 18 NYCRR 416.3 [Z]). Moreover, “estoppel is unavailable against a public agency” (see Granada Bldgs, v City of Kingston, 58 NY2d 705, 708 [1982]). Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Andrias, Saxe, DeGrasse and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 A.D.3d 705, 945 N.Y.S.2d 242, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rossi-v-new-york-state-office-of-children-family-services-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack