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.
IN RE: MARVIN DENNARD, PETITIONER, v.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
CITY OF BUFFALO EXAMINING BOARD OF PLUMBERS,
RESPONDENT.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department by order of the Supreme Court, Erie County [Tracey A. Bannister, J.], entered February 21, 2014) to review a determination of respondent. The determination revoked petitioner's master plumber's license.
It is hereby ORDERED that the determination is unanimously confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed.
Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annul the determination revoking his master plumber's license. Contrary to petitioner's contention, the determination is supported by substantial evidence (see generally 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d 176, 180–181). Although the determination is based in part on hearsay evidence, it is well settled that “[h]earsay is admissible in administrative proceedings, ‘and if sufficiently relevant and probative may constitute substantial evidence’ “ (Matter of Szczepaniak v. City of Rochester, 101 AD3d 1620, 1621, quoting People ex rel. Vega v. Smith, 66 N.Y.2d 130, 139; see Matter of Gray v. Adduci, 73 N.Y.2d 741, 742). We likewise reject petitioner's further contention that he was denied a fair hearing based on the use of hearsay evidence at the hearing (see Matter of Bauer v New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs., Bur. of Early Childhood Servs., 55 AD3d 421, 422; Matter of Murphy v. New York Racing Assn., 146 A.D.2d 778, 778–779, lv dismissed 74 N.Y.2d 715; cf. Matter of Scarpitta v. Glen Cove Hous. Auth., 48 A.D.2d 657, 658).
Finally, we conclude that petitioner received timely notice of the charges against him and was thus not denied a fair hearing based on untimely notice (see Matter of Block v. Ambach, 73 N.Y.2d 323, 332; Matter of Oznor Corp. v. County of Monroe, 60 AD3d 1492, 1493; see generally Matter of Tax Foreclosure No. 35, 127 A.D.2d 220, 223, affd 71 N.Y.2d 863). Petitioner was notified of the charges against him more than one year before the instant hearing. Although a prior determination on those charges was annulled and a new hearing ordered, the nature of the charges remained the same and petitioner was not denied the ability to “prepare and present an adequate defense and thereby have an opportunity to be heard” (Block, 73 N.Y.2d at 332).
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
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.
Docket No: TP 14–00849
Decided: January 02, 2015
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
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)