From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Active Appliance Corp. v. Suffolk

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 29, 1998
251 A.D.2d 659 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

June 29, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mullen, J.)


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The appellant's contention that it was denied. due process because the respondent denied its application for a home improvement license without a hearing is without merit ( see, Matter of Benvenuto v. Suffolk County Dept. of Consumer Affairs, 144 A.D.2d 455, 456; Matter of 125 Bar Corp. v. State Liq. Auth., 24 N.Y.2d 174; see also, Alexander, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C7803:1, at 352-353). Moreover, the respondent's denial of the appellant's application was supported by a rational basis and was not arbitrary and capricious ( see, Matter of Pell v. Board of Educ., 34 N.Y.2d 222, 231).

O'Brien, J. P., Ritter, Thompson, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Active Appliance Corp. v. Suffolk

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 29, 1998
251 A.D.2d 659 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Matter of Active Appliance Corp. v. Suffolk

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of ACTIVE APPLIANCE CORPORATION, Appellant, v. COUNTY OF…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jun 29, 1998

Citations

251 A.D.2d 659 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
676 N.Y.S.2d 486

Citing Cases

Testwell v. New York City Department of Build

However, Testwell's license was not revoked or suspended. Rather, the license expired on June 17, 2009, after…

Marsala v. City of Long Beach

The first claim seeking a writ of mandamus is dismissed. While a hearing is required where a license is…