Opinion
10829 Index 100924/18
01-21-2020
In re Gabriel KABAK, Petitioner–Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, Respondent–Respondent.
Gabriel Kabak, appellant pro se. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (MacKenzie Fillow of counsel), for respondent.
Gabriel Kabak, appellant pro se.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (MacKenzie Fillow of counsel), for respondent.
Manzanet–Daniels, J.P., Gesmer, Oing, Moulton, Gonza´lez, JJ.
Judgment (denominated an order), Supreme Court, New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J.), entered October 16, 2018, denying the petition to vacate the determination of respondent New York City Department of Finance's Parking Violations Adjudication Division, dated April 18, 2018, which upheld the finding that petitioner had violated 34 RCNY 4–08(d), and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Respondent's determination that petitioner violated 34 RCNY 4–08(d) was rational (see generally Matter of Pell v. Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 N.Y.2d 222, 231, 356 N.Y.S.2d 833, 313 N.E.2d 321 [1974] ). While petitioner's conduct may have constituted a violation of both 34 RCNY 4–08(d) and 4–08(m)(6), respondent was not prohibited from only charging petitioner with violating 34 RCNY 4–08(d) (see People v. Eboli, 34 N.Y.2d 281, 287, 357 N.Y.S.2d 435, 313 N.E.2d 746 [1974] ; People v. Lacay, 115 A.D.2d 450, 452, 496 N.Y.S.2d 337 [1st Dept. 1985] ).
Although respondent's determination was concise, it included a statement of the evidence relied upon, the specific conduct which constituted the violation, and addressed petitioner's legal argument, thereby giving petitioner notice of the basis for respondent's determination (see Matter of Ferraro v. State Univ. of N.Y. at Purchase Coll., 162 A.D.3d 766, 767, 80 N.Y.S.3d 64 [2d Dept. 2018] ; see also Matter of Young v. Village of Gouverneur, 145 A.D.3d 1285, 1287, 44 N.Y.S.3d 235 [3d Dept. 2016] ).
We have considered petitioner's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.