Matter of Donovan v Limandri

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Matter of Donovan v Limandri 2012 NY Slip Op 31287(U) May 10, 2012 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 100289/12 Judge: Alexander W. Hunter Jr Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service. Search E-Courts (http://www.nycourts.gov/ecourts) for any additional information on this case. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. SCANNED ON 511612012 [* 1] . , S'UPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEWYORK COUNTY Jwtlce Index Number : 100289/2012 DONOVEN, MICHAEL VS. - INDEX NO. MOTION DATE LIMANDRI, ROBERT D. SEQUENCE NUMBER : 001 ARTICLE 78 MOTION SEQ. NO. The following papers, numbered I to .,I. Notice of MotionlOrder to Show Cause Answering Affidavit8 2 - , were read on this motion tolfor I No(a). b IW s ) . 1 1 No(S). - Affidavits - Exhibits - Exhibits Replying Affldavlts I -> - n-3 --$ .*- L[ < -L - - Upon the foregolng papers, it Is ordered that this motion I s W LL W .. I. CHECK ONE: ..................................................................... J' I I.-] Y ~ A S EDISPOSED NON-FINAL DISPOSITION //-- ........................... MOTION IS: 1GRANTED ITDENIED GRANTED IN PART 0 L- ~OTHER CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: ................................................ 1-1SETTLE ORDER 11-3 SUBMIT ORDER 0DO NOT POST 0FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT I - 1 REFERENCE 2. CHECK AS APPROPRIATE: 3. [* 2] UNFILED JUDGMENT ludflmnt has not k n entered by the County C!wk [* 3] [* 4] C oriuction I .aw $ 753 prohibils public Ligciicics or privalc cniploycrs ti-otii dcnying ;I license o r cinployment to a 1 1 :ipplic:int hasccl solely on liis or her status i l s ;in es-olli.ndcr. However. tlicrc arc two cxccpiioiis to this gcncl-al rulc citlicr: I ) where ~licrc a direct is rcliiiiorisliip hclwccn ~ l i c prior crimiiial ofrense and h c license o r cniployment being souglit; 01 3 ) ~IICI C t l i ~ granting o l ~ h c licciisc 01 cliiployiiient wolIIci pose ati l111i+cijsoliithle risk to property. salkty ol spccilic indiviclilills 01- the generul piihlic. Clorrcclion Law tjtj 752(1) and (2). 111 makiiig its clctermina~iori~ cinploycr must consider h c followirig ciglit I;ictors: 1 ) the public ;iii policy 01 h i s s l a i ~ iIs expressed in this :ict, to c ~ ~ c o i r i ~ g elicensure :ind clllploytllent oi . the p m o i i x previously convicted ol c)Iic o r more crimin:il ofii.iiscs ; 3) the spcci lic diitics arid rrsponsi tiilitics iicccssiirily rclated lo the licciisc or t riiploymcnt soiiglit o r Iicld by the person .; 3 ) the hexirig* i I uny. the crimiiid offcIisc oll eiiscs liw which tlic pcrson was previously conviclcd will Iinvc 0 1 1 his lilncss o r ability to pcrli)rm one o r iiiorc siicli ciiitics o r rl.sponsihilitics : 4 ) thc time which has clapsccl siiicc die occiirrciicc ol thc criliiiliill oll tiise o r offenses .; 3 ) the age ol the person at the time o1 occiirrcricc 01 tlic criminal olli.nsc o r offc~iscs ; 6 ) the scrioiisiicss ol the oll ense o r olli.iiscs ; 7) m y in1i)rnialioii prodircccl by the person, o r procliicud on his txhalt . iti rcgiird to liis rehabilitatioii a i i d good conduct ; and 8 ) TIic Icgitimule interesl ol llic pLlblic iIge1icy or private cniploycr in prorccting prc-)pci.ly, uid the sali.ty and welliirc ol spccil-ic inclividiials o r h c gcnc ral public. Correction l a w 5 753. 1 lie revocation o r suspension of license c m i o t be cffcct~iatedwittioii1 noticc :iiitl a hearing in :icCordiIIICe wilh proccdunil duc process guarantcccl by thc I ourtccnlh Aiiiciidiiiciit. Hell v. Hurson, 402 I1.S. 535 (1971). Flowevcr, Ilicrc is iio properly itilcrcsl in thc rciicwal ol a licciiw i11id t1icrcli)rc pctiiioricr II~IS no constitutioiial due process right to a hearing. Matter of Daxor C orp. v. Slalc 0 f N . Y . I)ept. of Ilcallh, 90 N.Y.2cl 89 (1997); Tcstwell, Inr. v. Ncw , York C ilv Ilcpt. of B l d ~ s . 80 A.I).M 266 ( I Ilept. 2010). In (lie inslant case, pctiiioner w x provided will1 riolicu and an opportunity t o he heard pursiiaiil t o Adminislrativc C odc $ 38401 .13. I4c submillccl Ictlcr:, and other docuiiicnt~itiorito support his renewal iipplicalio11. A:, s d i . pclilioiicr.:, proccdiiral ciiic proccss rights were no( violated when he was not al fimlcd ;I hearing rcgxding his rcricwiil. I[ is well sctllcd that ;I delerniin:itioti is iubitrary and capricious when i l is made withoul sound basis in rciisori and is gcncl-ally takcn withoiil regard to the lircls. SCc Mattcr of Pcll v. Bd. of lltluc. of I Inion Free School Ilist. No. 1 of I owns0 1 Scar-sdale Cyr Mamaroncck, Westchcslcr C uuiity, 34 N.Y.2d 222, 231 (1974). I ~ v c nthough the coiirl iiiiglit h i v e decided di I l crenily wcrc it iii llic agency s position, tlic coiirt may not iipset the iigcncy s clclcrminalioii in [lie absence ol a lintling, not siip1mrIcd by this record, that the dclcrminatinii lixi no ratioiial basis. In the Matter of Mid-Slatc. Mzt. Chrp. v. Ncw York Clilv Conciliation and Appcals I 12 A.D.2d 72, 76 ( I Dcpt. 1985). I licrchre7 coi11.1.srolt. is limited to wlicther o r not this rcs,pondcnt\ linal dctcrmin:ition was made wilhout a rational hasih. m. [* 5] l);itcd: M a y 10. 20 I 3

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.