Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Matter of ARIA CONTRACTING CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. James J. McGOWAN, Commissioner of New York State Department of Labor, Connie Varcasia, Deputy Commissioner of New York State Department of Labor, Richard Cucolo, Director of New York State Department of Labor, Division of Safety and Health, Maureen Cox, Program Manager of New York State Department of Labor, Asbestos Control Bureau, and Alfred Jakubowski, Supervisor of Buffalo Regional Office of New York State Department of Labor, Asbestos Control Bureau, Individually and as Representatives of New York State Department of Labor, Respondents.
Petitioner challenges a determination of the New York State Department of Labor (Department) finding him guilty of violating 14 code violations involving the removal of asbestos (see, 12 NYCRR part 56). Petitioner admitted most of the violations and, in any event, the testimony of the investigators who described the violations constitutes substantial evidence in support of the determination (see, 300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v. State Div. of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d 176, 181-182, 408 N.Y.S.2d 54, 379 N.E.2d 1183). Petitioner's excuses for the violations presented an issue of credibility for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see, Matter of Berenhaus v. Ward, 70 N.Y.2d 436, 443-444, 522 N.Y.S.2d 478, 517 N.E.2d 193; Matter of Collins v. Codd, 38 N.Y.2d 269, 270-271, 379 N.Y.S.2d 733, 342 N.E.2d 524). Petitioner contends that the proceedings “were biased and prejudicial” because the Hearing Officer excluded two witnesses from testifying. Those witnesses did not inspect the sites, however, and their testimony would have been irrelevant on the issue whether petitioner violated the rules regarding asbestos removal (see, State Administrative Procedure Act § 306[1] ). Petitioner asserted that those witnesses were needed to demonstrate discriminatory enforcement, but that claim may not be raised at an administrative hearing (see, Matter of Cannon v. Urlacher, 155 A.D.2d 906, 547 N.Y.S.2d 495; Matter of Bell v. New York State Liquor Auth., 48 A.D.2d 83, 84, 367 N.Y.S.2d 875). Finally, in light of the seriousness of the violations and petitioner's previous violations of the rules for asbestos removal, the civil penalty of $34,000 and a two-year license revocation are not so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness (see, Matter of Pell v. Board of Educ., 34 N.Y.2d 222, 233, 356 N.Y.S.2d 833, 313 N.E.2d 321; Matter of 106 Fulton Assocs. v. City of New York Envtl. Control Bd., 214 A.D.2d 440, 625 N.Y.S.2d 197).
Determination unanimously confirmed without costs and petition dismissed.
MEMORANDUM:
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: December 31, 1998
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)