Matter of Inglese v Limandri

Annotate this Case
Matter of Matter of Inglese v Limandri 2011 NY Slip Op 08484 Decided on November 22, 2011 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 November 22, 2011
Moskowitz, J.P., Renwick, DeGrasse, Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
6134 107806/10

[*1]In re Louis Inglese, Jr., Petitioner-Respondent,

v

Robert D. Limandri, as Commissioner of the New York City Department of Buildings, Respondent-Appellant.




Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Susan
Paulson of counsel), for appellant.
Murray Richman, Bronx (Brian Alexander Jacobs of counsel),
for respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered November 12, 2010, annulling respondent's determination, dated April 23, 2010, which revoked petitioner's hoist machine operator license, and remanding the matter for a new determination, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the petition denied, respondent's determination reinstated, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 dismissed.

Petitioner's conviction of a crime directly related to the use of the subject license demonstrates poor moral character that adversely reflects on his fitness to hold a licensed position in
the construction industry (Administrative Code of City of NY §§ 28-401.6; 28-401.19[13]). The penalty imposed is not disproportionate to the offense (see 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]).
The Commissioner properly considered the factors set forth in Correction Law § 753.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: NOVEMBER 22, 2011

CLERK

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.