Matter of Aranda v New York City Dept. of Bldgs.

Matter of Matter of Aranda v New York City Dept. of Bldgs. 2012 NY Slip Op 08250 Decided on December 4, 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 December 4, 2012
Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Acosta, Renwick, Freedman, JJ.
8687 104898/11

[*1]In re Manuel Aranda, Petitioner-Appellant, The

v

New York City Department of Buildings, et al., Respondents-Respondents.




Law Offices of Gregory T. Chillino, New York (Christopher M.
Slowik of counsel), for appellant.
Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York
(Elizabeth I. Freedman of counsel), for respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Cynthia S. Kern, J.), entered October 14, 2011, which denied the petition brought pursuant to CPLR Article 78 seeking to reverse and annul respondent New York City Department of Building's (DOB) determination denying petitioner's application for a Master Fire Suppression Piping Contractor's license and dismissed the proceeding brought, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

DOB's determination denying petitioner's application for reinstatement of his fire suppression license without retaking the examination had a rational basis and was not arbitrary and capricious (see Arbuiso v New York City Dept. of Bldgs., 64 AD3d 520, 522 [1st Dept 2009]). Although petitioner submitted six notarized letters from clients in support of the fire suppression work he performed from 2007 to 2010, his proof of supervision on enumerated projects was markedly deficient (see Administrative Code of the City of New York § 28-401.13). Only one of the six letters indicated that it was from a licensed Master Fire Suppression Piping Contractor, and did not indicate the description of the work petitioner performed, petitioner's daily responsibilities or the dates of his employment (see e.g. Matter of Reingold v Koch, 111 [*2]AD2d 688 [1st Dept 1985], affd 66 NY2d 994 [1985]).

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

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

ENTERED: DECEMBER 4, 2012

CLERK