Estafanous v. N.Y.C. Envtl. Control Bd.
| Citation | 26 N.Y.S.3d 126,136 A.D.3d 906 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Nashat ESTAFANOUS, petitioner, v. NEW YORK CITY ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL BOARD, et al., respondents. |
| Decision Date | 17 February 2016 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
136 A.D.3d 906
26 N.Y.S.3d 126
In the Matter of Nashat ESTAFANOUS, petitioner,
v.
NEW YORK CITY ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL BOARD, et al., respondents.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Feb. 17, 2016.
Robert Prignoli, Staten Island, N.Y., for petitioner.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Pamela Seider Dolgow and Marta Ross of counsel), for respondents.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., L. PRISCILLA HALL, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, and HECTOR D. LaSALLE, JJ.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York City Environmental Control Board dated July 25, 2013, which confirmed a determination of an administrative law judge dated March 27, 2013, which, after a hearing, found that the petitioner violated Administrative Code of the City of New York § 28–201.1 by failing to comply with an order of the Commissioner of the Department of Buildings of the City of New York to obtain a permit for work performed on his property or to remove existing violations, and assessed a penalty in the sum of $40,800 against the petitioner.
ADJUDGED that the determination dated July 25, 2013, is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.
The petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent New York City Environmental Control Board (hereinafter the ECB), which confirmed a determination of an administrative law judge (hereinafter the ALJ) that the petitioner violated Administrative Code of the City of New York § 28–201.1 by failing to comply with an order of the Commissioner of the respondent Department of Buildings of the City of New York (hereinafter the DOB) to obtain a permit for work performed on his property or to remove existing violations. The administrative determination included the assessment of a penalty in the sum of $40,800 against the petitioner.
Contrary to the respondents' contention, the petitioner's claim that he was improperly denied the opportunity to be represented by counsel at a hearing is properly before this
Court (see generally Matter of Solutions Economics, LLC v. Long Is. Power Auth., 97 A.D.3d 593, 595, 948 N.Y.S.2d 100 ; Matter of Kearney v. Village of Cold Spring Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 83 A.D.3d 711, 713, 920 N.Y.S.2d 379 ;
Matter of Emrey Props., Inc. v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bursch v. Purchase Coll. of the State Univ. of N.Y., 2016–03913
...P.C. v. Axelrod, 103 A.D.2d 769, 770, 477 N.Y.S.2d 400 [citations omitted]; see Matter of Estafanous v. New York City Envtl. Control Bd., 136 A.D.3d 906, 907, 26 N.Y.S.3d 126 ; Matter of Baywood Elec. Corp. v. New York State Dept. of Labor, 232 A.D.2d 553, 554, 649 N.Y.S.2d 28 ). Accordingl......
-
Town of Bos. v. N.Y.S. Office for People With Developmental Disabilities
...the decision whether to grant an adjournment is a matter of discretion (see Matter of Estafanous v. New York City Envtl. Control Bd., 136 A.D.3d 906, 907, 26 N.Y.S.3d 126 [2d Dept.2016] ; Redd v. Juarbe, 124 A.D.3d 1274, 1276, 1 N.Y.S.3d 638 [4th Dept.2015] ), I conclude that the denial of ......
-
Pace v. Douglas
...the Support Magistrate's determination that the father willfully violated the order of child support (see Matter of Dezil v. Garlick, 136 A.D.3d at 906, 25 N.Y.S.3d 307...
-
Dezil v. Garlick
...present any evidence that she had made a reasonable and diligent effort to secure employment. Thus, the mother failed to meet her burden 136 A.D.3d 906of presenting competent, credible evidence that she was unable to make payments as ordered (see Matter of Maharaj–Ellis v. Laroche, 132 A.D.......