Matter of Meyers v Mintz

Matter of Matter of Meyers v Mintz 2012 NY Slip Op 00095 Decided on January 10, 2012 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on January 10, 2012
Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Acosta, Renwick, Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
6499 111482/09

[*1]In re Robert L. Meyers, doing business as B & G Roofing, Petitioner,

v

Jonathan Mintz, etc., et al., Respondents.




Norman A. Olch, New York, for appellant.
Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Susan
Paulson of counsel), for respondents.

Determination of respondent Commissioner of the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA), dated November 17, 2008, which, after a hearing, revoked petitioner's home improvement contractor license and ordered him to pay restitution and a fine, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Marylin G. Diamond, J.], entered November 16, 2009) dismissed, without costs.

DCA's determination was supported by substantial evidence. There is no basis to disturb respondent's determination, premised largely on this assessment of witness credibility, that petitioner performed substandard home improvement work on the complainant's home, failed to correct the errors despite continual requests by the complainant, and supplied a contract in violation of numerous legal requirements (see Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443-444 [1987]). In addition, substantial evidence supported the determination ordering petitioner to pay restitution to the complainant because petitioner's substandard repairs and failure to correct them caused the complainant to incur additional costs to repair the damage to his home.

Under the circumstances, the penalty of revoking petitioner's home improvement contractor license was not so disproportionate to the offense as to shock the judicial conscience (see Matter of Featherstone v Franco, 95 NY2d 550, 554 [2000]; Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222, 233 [1974]).

Finally, petitioner has failed to demonstrate bias on the part of DCA (see Matter of Warder v Board of Regents of Univ. of State of N.Y., 53 NY2d 186, 197, cert denied 454 US 1125 [1981];
Matter of Mauro v Division of Hous. & Community Renewal, 250 AD2d 392 [1998]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT. [*2]

ENTERED: JANUARY 10, 2011

CLERK