Opinion
83 A.D.3d 509 923 N.Y.S.2d 427 In re Paul RASOLE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. The DEPARTMENT OF CITYWIDE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, et al., Respondents-Respondents. No. 2011-02952 Supreme Court of New York, First Department April 14, 2011
Tarter Krinsky & Drogin, LLP, New York (David J. Pfeffer of counsel), for appellant.
Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Elizabeth I. Freedman of counsel), for respondents.
MAZZARELLI, J.P., FRIEDMAN, ACOSTA, DeGRASSE, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael D. Stallman, J.), entered February 19, 2010, which denied the petition seeking, inter alia, to annul the determination of respondent New York City Department of Buildings (DOB) denying petitioner's application for a Master Fire Suppression Piping Contractor's license and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
DOB's determination denying petitioner's license application had a rational basis ( see Arbuiso v. New York City Dept. of Bldgs., 64 A.D.3d 520, 522, 883 N.Y.S.2d 216 [2009] ). Petitioner's supervisors at two of the three companies he listed in his application submitted affidavits indicating that petitioner did not perform the type of work necessary to satisfy the prior experience requirement for obtaining such a license ( see Administrative Code of the City of New York § 26-146[b]; see alsoMatter of Reingold v. Koch, 111 A.D.2d 688, 490 N.Y.S.2d 508 [1985], affd. 66 N.Y.2d 994, 499 N.Y.S.2d 395, 489 N.E.2d 1297 [1985] ). Although petitioner did present evidence that he performed the appropriate type of work pursuant to permits obtained by the supervisors at a third company, the time periods authorized for those projects falls well short of the required three years. Furthermore, contrary to petitioner's contention, he did not have a due process right to a hearing regarding his initial application for a license ( see Matter of Daxor Corp. v. State of N.Y. Dept. of Health, 90 N.Y.2d 89, 97-98, 659 N.Y.S.2d 189, 681 N.E.2d 356 [1997], cert. denied 523 U.S. 1074, 118 S.Ct. 1516, 140 L.Ed.2d 669 [1998] ), and the record establishes that he was afforded " a full and fair opportunity to be heard" ( Patrolmen's Benevolent Assn. of the City of N.Y., Inc. v. New York City Bd. of Collective Bargaining, 38 A.D.3d 482, 483, 834 N.Y.S.2d 95 [2007], lv. denied 9 N.Y.3d 807, 843 N.Y.S.2d 536, 875 N.E.2d 29 [2007] ).
We have considered petitioner's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.