From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Christian v. City of N.Y.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
May 10, 2016
139 A.D.3d 457 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)

Opinion

05-10-2016

In re Edwin L. CHRISTIAN, etc., Petitioner–Respondent, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Respondents–Appellants.

Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Susan Paulson of counsel), for appellants. Pitta & Giblin LLP, New York (Vincent M. Giblin of counsel), for respondent.


Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Susan Paulson of counsel), for appellants.

Pitta & Giblin LLP, New York (Vincent M. Giblin of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Wooten, J.), entered November 10, 2015, granting the petition to annul certain amendments to 1 RCNY 104–09, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter an amended judgment accordingly.

Petitioner challenges certain amendments to 1 RCNY 104–09 regarding the licensing of crane operators. In particular, petitioner challenges provisions that effectively dispensed with requirements, as to class A licenses, that certain qualifying experience be acquired in New York City and under the supervision of New York City-licensed operators, as well as provisions that eliminated, for both class A and class B license applicants, a City-administered examination, in favor of national certification. Petitioner lacks standing to make these challenges. The safety-related harm that it predicts will result from the amendments is too speculative to show “ ‘injury in fact,’ meaning that [petitioner] will actually be harmed by the challenged [amendments]” (New York State Assn. of Nurse Anesthetists v. Novello, 2 N.Y.3d 207, 211, 778 N.Y.S.2d 123, 810 N.E.2d 405 [2004] ). As in Nurse Anesthetists, the record shows nothing more than that the injury predicted “might[ ] or might not” result from the amendments (id. at 214, 778 N.Y.S.2d 123, 810 N.E.2d 405 ).

In any event the Department of Buildings acted rationally in adopting the amendments which were not inconsistent with its prior position.

MAZZARELLI, J.P., RENWICK, SAXE, GISCHE, KAHN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Christian v. City of N.Y.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
May 10, 2016
139 A.D.3d 457 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
Case details for

Christian v. City of N.Y.

Case Details

Full title:In re Edwin L. CHRISTIAN, etc., Petitioner–Respondent, v. CITY OF NEW…

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

Date published: May 10, 2016

Citations

139 A.D.3d 457 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 3659
29 N.Y.S.3d 792