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: Walter Aparicio, respondent, v Environmental Control Board of City of New York, appellant.
Submitted—April 8, 2011
DECISION, ORDER & JUDGMENT
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York City Environmental Control Board dated September 24, 2009, finding, after a hearing, that the petitioner violated former section 27–118.1 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York by altering a dwelling for occupancy by more than the legally approved number of families and imposing a civil penalty, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Taylor, J.), dated June 8, 2010, which granted the petition and annulled the determination.
ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed and the judgment is vacated; and it is further,
ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits; and it is further,
ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the Environmental Control Board of the City of New York.
Since a question of substantial evidence is involved, the proceeding should have been transferred to this Court pursuant to CPLR 7804(g). Nevertheless, because the record is now before this Court, we will treat the matter as one initially transferred here and will review the administrative determination de novo (see Matter of Natiello v. Carrion, 73 AD3d 1070; Matter of Roth v Manhasset Union Free School Dist., 60 AD3d 771, 772).
The determination of the Environmental Control Board of the City of New York affirming the Administrative Law Judge's finding that the petitioner had converted the subject residence for occupancy by more than the approved number of families was supported by substantial evidence, and consistent with its prior precedent. Accordingly, the determination should be confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding dismissed (see Matter of R.I., Inc. v New York State Dept. of Labor, 72 AD3d 1098, 1099; Matter of Brooklyn Resource Recovery, Inc. v City of New York, 11 AD3d 682, 683; cf. Knight v. Amelkin, 68 N.Y.2d 975, 978; Matter of Charles A. Field Delivery Serv. [Roberts ], 66 N.Y.2d 516, 522).
MASTRO, J.P., BELEN, CHAMBERS and ROMAN, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Matthew G. Kiernan
Clerk of the Court
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.
Docket No: 2010–07064 (Index No. 1183 /10)
Decided: April 26, 2011
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)