From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Simpson, Inc. v. Envtl. Cont. Bd.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 20, 1998
252 A.D.2d 557 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

July 20, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Mastro, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the petition is denied, the determination is confirmed, and the proceeding is dismissed.

It is well settled that in determining a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, a reviewing court may not consider an issue which was not raised before the administrative tribunal (see, CPLR 7803; Matter of Henry v. Wetzler, 82 N.Y.2d 859, cert denied 511 U.S. 1126; Matter of University Hgts. Nursing Home v. Chassin, 245 A.D.2d 776). Inasmuch as the petitioner never argued that it was an improper party to the administrative proceeding, it was error for the court to annul the determination on this ground (see, Matter of Van Cleef Realty v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 216 A.D.2d 306, 307; Matter of Club Swamp Annex v. White, 167 A.D.2d 400).

Moreover, the agency's determination had a sound basis in reason and thus was neither arbitrary nor capricious (Matter of Pell v. Board of Educ., 34 N.Y.2d 222; Matter of Colton v. Berman, 21 N.Y.2d 322, 329; Matter of Eccles v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 224 A.D.2d 525).

The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit.

Copertino, J. P., Pizzuto, Altman and Friedmann, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Simpson, Inc. v. Envtl. Cont. Bd.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 20, 1998
252 A.D.2d 557 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Matter of Simpson, Inc. v. Envtl. Cont. Bd.

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of JAMES SIMPSON, INC., Respondent, v. CITY OF NEW YORK…

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

Date published: Jul 20, 1998

Citations

252 A.D.2d 557 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
675 N.Y.S.2d 886

Citing Cases

Tri-Rail Constr. Inc. v. Envtl. Control Bd. of N.Y.

Furthermore, while, in its ECB submissions, Tri-Rail noted that ECB's counsel advised of the default through…

In re Start Elevator v. Env. Control Bd.

And, as petitioner in its January 2011 request for a new hearing did not deny having received notice of the…