From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tiwari v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Jan 5, 2021
190 A.D.3d 442 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)

Opinion

12777 Index No. 152861/19 Case No. 2020-00019

01-05-2021

In the Matter of Krishna TIWARI, Petitioner–Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Respondents–Respondents.

Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, New York (Julia A. Quigley of counsel), for appellant. James E. Johnson, Corporation Counsel, New York (Amy McCamphill of counsel), for respondents.


Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, New York (Julia A. Quigley of counsel), for appellant.

James E. Johnson, Corporation Counsel, New York (Amy McCamphill of counsel), for respondents.

Webber, J.P., Singh, Kennedy, Shulman, JJ.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Edmead, J.), entered on October 9, 2019, denying the petition to annul a $6,000 penalty imposed by respondent Department of Buildings (DOB), and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly found that the minimum mandatory fine imposed by DOB pursuant to Administrative Code of City of N.Y. § 28–213.1.2, based upon petitioner's installation of a four-by-twenty foot illuminated and cantilevered awning sign at his commercial premises without a permit, in violation of Administrative Code § 28–105.1, was not excessive. Petitioner's challenge to the penalty as violative of the constitutional prohibitions against excessive fines (see U.S. Const., 8th Amend; N.Y. Const., Art. I, § 5 ), is unavailing. The penalty serves a remedial, rather than punitive, purpose and is intended to "coerce compliance" ( Matter of Franklin St. Realty Corp. v. NYC Envtl. Control Bd., 164 A.D.3d 19, 30, 83 N.Y.S.3d 41 [1st Dept. 2018], affd 34 N.Y.3d 600, 122 N.Y.S.3d 567, 145 N.E.3d 204 [2019] ; see OTR Media Group, Inc. v. City of New York, 83 A.D.3d 451, 454, 920 N.Y.S.2d 337 [1st Dept. 2011] ). Even if the penalty was punitive, it was not "grossly disproportional to the gravity of [the] offense" (see County of Nassau v. Canavan, 1 N.Y.3d 134, 140, 770 N.Y.S.2d 277, 802 N.E.2d 616 [2003] ). Contrary to petitioner's argument, the fact that, as of February 9, 2019, Local Law 28 of 2019 instituted a temporary, two-year moratorium on the issuance of violations and penalties for certain accessory signs, does not establish that the $6,000 penalty imposed on him was excessive.


Summaries of

Tiwari v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Jan 5, 2021
190 A.D.3d 442 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)
Case details for

Tiwari v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of Krishna Tiwari, Petitioner-Appellant, v. City of New York…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Date published: Jan 5, 2021

Citations

190 A.D.3d 442 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)
190 A.D.3d 442
2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 45

Citing Cases

Solid State Elevator Corp. v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Buildings

Petitioner's argument revolves around Respondent's rejection of Petitioner's late ELV and AOC reports as it…

Singletary v. Residential Mgmt.

Respondents’ argument that the civil penalties imposed (see Administrative Code of City of NY § 27-2115[a])…