Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

IN RE: BREEZE CARTING CORP., Petitioner-Appellant, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Respondents-Respondents.

Decided: June 26, 2008

LIPPMAN, P.J., TOM, ANDRIAS, SAXE, JJ. Sullivan Gardner PC, New York (Peter Sullivan of counsel), for appellant. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Cheryl Payer of counsel), for respondents.

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered April 9, 2008, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 seeking to vacate the determination of respondent New York City Business Integrity Commission denying petitioner an exemption from licensing requirements and for issuance of a registration to operate as a construction and demolition debris hauler, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

 There was a rational basis for the finding that petitioner failed to demonstrate eligibility for exemption from licensing on the ground that petitioner's president was convicted of bribing a public official and identified as an associate in organized crime, and where petitioner rejected a reasonable condition of registration, namely the submission of a monitor to oversee operations for one year (Administrative Code of the City of New York § 16-504;  § 16-511).   The denial was also properly based on petitioner's knowing provision of false information and failure to provide information in its application (see Administrative Code § 16-509;  Matter of Sindone v. City of New York, 2 A.D.3d 125, 126, 767 N.Y.S.2d 438 [2003];  Tocci Bros. v. Trade Waste Commn. of City of N.Y., 251 A.D.2d 160, 673 N.Y.S.2d 911 [1998], lv. denied 92 N.Y.2d 812, 680 N.Y.S.2d 458, 703 N.E.2d 270 [1998] ).   Contrary to petitioner's contention, the granting of a registration is not a ministerial act (see EdCia Corp. v. McCormack, 44 A.D.3d 991, 994, 845 N.Y.S.2d 104 [2007];  Matter of Attonito v. Maldonado, 3 A.D.3d 415, 418, 771 N.Y.S.2d 97 [2004], lv. denied 2 N.Y.3d 705, 780 N.Y.S.2d 311, 812 N.E.2d 1261 [2004] ).

We have considered petitioner's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.