Theodorakis v. Suffolk County Office of Citizen Affairs

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Theodorakis v. Suffolk County Office of Citizen Affairs

251 A.D.2d 336, 673 N.Y.S.2d 1005, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6301

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

DecidedJune 1, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 251 A.D.2d 336 (Theodorakis v. Suffolk County Office of Citizen Affairs) 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

Theodorakis v. Suffolk County Office of Citizen Affairs, 251 A.D.2d 336, 673 N.Y.S.2d 1005, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6301 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Suffolk County Office of Citizen Affairs, dated May 30, 1996, which denied the petitioner’s application for retroactive renewal of a home improvement contractor’s license, the appeal is from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Dunn, J.), entered May 8, 1997, which granted the petition and directed the appellants to renew the petitioner’s home improvement contractor’s license retroactively, and (2) an order of the same court, dated July 28, 1997, which denied a motion to resettle the judgment.

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits; and it is further,

Ordered that the appellants are awarded one bill of costs.

An order denying a motion to resettle a substantive or decretal portion of a prior order is not appealable (see, EQK Green Acres v United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 248 AD2d 667).

We agree with the Supreme Court that this proceeding is not barred by the Statute of Limitations. However, the court improperly granted the petition. Suffolk County Code § 345-6 (C) provides that “[flailure to make application and pay the required annual fee for a license renewal prior to the expiration date of said license shall render the license null and void on the expiration date”. There is no provision in the Suffolk County Code that allows for retroactive renewal of a home improvement contractor’s license, which expired two years before the renewal was sought. Accordingly, the appellants’ determination was not arbitrary and capricious (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222). Rosenblatt, J. P., Ritter, Joy and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Suffolk County Office of Citizen Affairs, dated May 30, 1996, which denied the petitioner’s application for retroactive renewal of a home improvement contractor’s license, the appeal is from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Dunn, J.), entered May 8, 1997, which granted the petition and directed the appellants to renew the petitioner’s home improvement contractor’s license retroactively, and (2) an order of the same court, dated July 28, 1997, which denied a motion to resettle the judgment.

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits; and it is further,

Ordered that the appellants are awarded one bill of costs.

An order denying a motion to resettle a substantive or decretal portion of a prior order is not appealable (see, EQK Green Acres v United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 248 AD2d 667).

We agree with the Supreme Court that this proceeding is not barred by the Statute of Limitations. However, the court improperly granted the petition. Suffolk County Code § 345-6 (C) provides that “[flailure to make application and pay the required annual fee for a license renewal prior to the expiration date of said license shall render the license null and void on the expiration date”. There is no provision in the Suffolk County Code that allows for retroactive renewal of a home improvement contractor’s license, which expired two years before the renewal was sought. Accordingly, the appellants’ determination was not arbitrary and capricious (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222). Rosenblatt, J. P., Ritter, Joy and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D.2d 336, 673 N.Y.S.2d 1005, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6301, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/theodorakis-v-suffolk-county-office-of-citizen-affairs-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack