Opinion
11222 Index 155704/19
03-10-2020
In re Brad ALLECIA, Petitioner, v. The NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF BUILDINGS, et al., Respondents.
Fox Rothschild LLP, New York (James M. Lemonedes of counsel), for petitioner. Georgia M. Pestana, Acting Corporation Counsel, New York (D. Alan Rosinus, Jr. of counsel), for respondents.
Fox Rothschild LLP, New York (James M. Lemonedes of counsel), for petitioner.
Georgia M. Pestana, Acting Corporation Counsel, New York (D. Alan Rosinus, Jr. of counsel), for respondents.
Gische, J.P., Webber, Gesmer, Kern, JJ.
Determination of respondent Department of Buildings, dated April 19, 2019, which permanently revoked petitioner's master rigger license, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by amended order of Supreme Court, New York County [John J. Kelley, J.], entered September 27, 2019), dismissed, without costs.
Respondent's determinations with respect to the charges of misconduct against petitioner are supported by substantial evidence (see generally 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v. State Div. of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d 176, 408 N.Y.S.2d 54, 379 N.E.2d 1183 [1978] ), and are not arbitrary or capricious (see Matter of Whitehead v. McMickens, 126 A.D.2d 440, 510 N.Y.S.2d 586 [1st Dept. 1987], affd 69 N.Y.2d 942, 516 N.Y.S.2d 640, 509 N.E.2d 335 [1987] ).
Our role in reviewing an administrative penalty is sharply limited, and we do not overturn administrative penalties lightly ( Matter of Bolt v. New York City Dept. of Educ., 30 N.Y.3d 1065, 1071–1072, 69 N.Y.S.3d 255, 91 N.E.3d 1234 [2018] ). Applying this standard, we confirm the penalty of permanent revocation of petitioner's master rigger license as it does not shock our sense of fairness and was an appropriate exercise of the agency's discretion.