Opinion
05-09-2017
In re Ira J. BENLEVI, Petitioner–Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF BUILDINGS, Respondent–Respondent.
Ira J. Benlevi, appellant pro se. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Fay Ng of counsel), for respondent.
Ira J. Benlevi, appellant pro se.Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Fay Ng of counsel), for respondent.
ACOSTA, J.P., RENWICK, MAZZARELLI, GISCHE, GESMER, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shlomo Hagler,
J.), entered June 28, 2016, which denied the petition to annul the determination of respondent New York City Department of Buildings (DOB), dated January 26, 2016, and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, on the grounds that petitioner's revised penalty of the suspension of his filing privileges for three years and seven months was not excessive, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Given the circumstances of this case, that petitioner falsely represented that he was licensed to practice architecture when, during his six-month suspension from practice, he filed post-approval amendments with the DOB, petitioner's penalty of three years seven months was not "shocking to one's sense of fairness" (Matter of Pell v. Bd. Of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 N.Y.2d 222, 237, 356 N.Y.S.2d 833, 313 N.E.2d 321 [1974] ). Despite the fact that petitioner's violations related to post-approval amendments to filings, and not new plans (cf. Matter of St. Clair Nation v. City of New York, 14 N.Y.3d 452, 454–455, 458, 902 N.Y.S.2d 22, 928 N.E.2d 404 [2010] ), the Supreme Court properly considered petitioner's continued refusal to acknowledge any wrongdoing in upholding the revised penalty (see Roman v. New York City Dept. of Educ., 128 A.D.3d 590, 591, 10 N.Y.S.3d 62 [1st Dept.2015] ).
The article 78 proceeding was limited to petitioner's revised penalty, thus, his attempt to reargue the merits of his case are unavailing.