Opinion
2012-11-14
Bruce L. Steinowitz, White Plains, N.Y., for petitioner. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Larry A. Sonnenshein and Kathy H. Chang of counsel), for respondent.
Bruce L. Steinowitz, White Plains, N.Y., for petitioner. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Larry A. Sonnenshein and Kathy H. Chang of counsel), for respondent.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York City Department of Buildings dated May 3, 2011, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioner's application for a Master Fire Suppression Piping Contractor's license.
ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.
Judicial review of an administrative determination made after a hearing at which evidence was taken, pursuant to direction by law, is limited to whether the determination is supported by substantial evidence based upon the entire record ( seeCPLR 7803[4] ). Moreover, “ ‘[t]he courts may not weigh the evidence or reject the choice made by [an administrative agency] where the evidence is conflicting and room for choice exists' ” (Matter of Berenhaus v. Ward, 70 N.Y.2d 436, 444, 522 N.Y.S.2d 478, 517 N.E.2d 193, quoting Matter of Stork Rest. v. Boland, 282 N.Y. 256, 267, 26 N.E.2d 247;see Matter of Elite Ready Mix Corp. v. New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs., 92 A.D.3d 678, 937 N.Y.S.2d 877).
Here, contrary to the petitioner's contention, the determination of the New York City Department of Buildings to deny the petitioner's application for a Master Fire Suppression Piping Contractor's license was supported by substantial evidence ( see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v. State Div. of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d 176, 180, 408 N.Y.S.2d 54, 379 N.E.2d 1183;Matter of Shuler v. New York City Hous. Auth., 88 A.D.3d 895, 896–897, 931 N.Y.S.2d 329;Matter of Reingold v. Koch, 111 A.D.2d 688, 690–691, 490 N.Y.S.2d 508,affd.66 N.Y.2d 994, 499 N.Y.S.2d 395, 489 N.E.2d 1297).