From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rossi v. State Office of Children & Family Servs.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
May 24, 2012
95 A.D.3d 705 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)

Opinion

2012-05-24

In re Gwendolyn ROSSI, et al., Petitioners, v. NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Respondent.

Bernard Mitchell Alter, Brooklyn, for petitioners. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York (David Lawrence III of counsel), for respondent.



Bernard Mitchell Alter, Brooklyn, for petitioners. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York (David Lawrence III of counsel), for respondent.
GONZALEZ, P.J., ANDRIAS, SAXE, DeGRASSE, ROMÁN, JJ.

Determination of respondent, dated April 2, 2010, after an evidentiary hearing, which denied renewal of petitioner Wendy Eugene's license to operate a group family day care in the basement of her residence, and revoked petitioners' license to operate a group family day care on the first floor of the same premises, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Richard F. Braun, J.], entered January 18, 2011), dismissed, without costs.

The agency's determination was supported by substantial evidence ( see generally 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v. State Div. of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d 176, 180–181, 408 N.Y.S.2d 54, 379 N.E.2d 1183 [1978] ). The record demonstrates that the ceiling height in the basement was less than seven feet in some areas, an undisputed violation of the applicable building code ( see Administrative Code of City of N.Y. § 28–1208.2). The record also supports the finding that the basement and first floor of the residence, which were connected by an internal staircase, constituted one dwelling unit, and that applicable regulations prohibited two group family day care programs from operating in one unit (18 NYCRR 416.15[a][20][i] ).

Petitioners had no vested right to continue to operate the programs since they were required to remain in compliance with all applicable regulations ( see18 NYCRR 416.3[ l ] ). Moreover, “estoppel is unavailable against a public agency” ( see Granada Bldgs. v. City of Kingston, 58 N.Y.2d 705, 708, 458 N.Y.S.2d 906, 444 N.E.2d 1325 [1982] ).


Summaries of

Rossi v. State Office of Children & Family Servs.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
May 24, 2012
95 A.D.3d 705 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
Case details for

Rossi v. State Office of Children & Family Servs.

Case Details

Full title:In re Gwendolyn ROSSI, et al., Petitioners, v. NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF…

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

Date published: May 24, 2012

Citations

95 A.D.3d 705 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
945 N.Y.S.2d 242
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 4078