Martin v. City of N.Y.

• Decision Date: 05 February 2013
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Parties: In re John MARTIN, Petitioner–Appellant–Respondent, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent–Respondent–Appellant.

103 A.D.3d 412

959 N.Y.S.2d 177

2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 00691

In re John MARTIN, Petitioner–Appellant–Respondent,

v.The CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent–Respondent–Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Feb. 5, 2013.

Law Office of Stuart A. Klein, New York (Christopher M. Slowik of counsel), for appellant-respondent.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Janet L. Zaleon of counsel), for respondent-appellant.

FRIEDMAN, J.P., DeGRASSE, RICHTER, ABDUS–SALAAM, FEINMAN, JJ.

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered November 4, 2011, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted petitioner's motion to renew his petition challenging respondent's denial of his application for a master plumber's license, and, upon renewal, directed petitioner to submit to respondent, within 30 days, additional proof in support of his application, and adjudged that petitioner's failure to do so “will deem the application denied,” unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although this Court's decision in Matter of Kreitzer v. New York City Dept. of Bldgs., 24 A.D.3d 374, 806 N.Y.S.2d 532 [1st Dept. 2005], lv. denied6 N.Y.3d 715, 823 N.Y.S.2d 356, 856 N.E.2d 920 [2006] did not change the law, it undermined the primary basis on which respondent had denied petitioner's application for a master plumber's license, i.e., that petitioner did not show that he had been directly employed by a master plumber. Thus, Supreme Court properly granted petitioner's motion to renew (CPLR 2221[e] [2]; see Mejia v. Nanni, 307 A.D.2d 870, 871, 763 N.Y.S.2d 611 [1st Dept. 2003] ).

Petitioner is correct that our review of respondent's determination is limited to the grounds invoked by respondent ( see Matter of Parkmed Assoc. v. New York State Tax Commn., 60 N.Y.2d 935, 471 N.Y.S.2d 44, 459 N.E.2d 153 [1983] ). However, it is not clear from the record that petitioner's failure to show he had been directly employed by a master plumber was the sole basis for respondent's determination. In any event, petitioner would not be entitled to the judgment he seeks directing respondent to grant his application, since, as Supreme Court correctly found, he failed to show the requisite qualifying experience ( see Matter of Reingold v. Koch, 111 A.D.2d 688, 490 N.Y.S.2d 508 [1st Dept. 1985], affd. for the reasons stated66 N.Y.2d 994, 499 N.Y.S.2d 395, 489 N.E.2d 1297 [1985] ).