From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Coverco, Inc. v. N.Y.S. Dep't of Econ. Dev.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Mar 23, 2018
159 A.D.3d 1538 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)

Opinion

194 TP 17–01292

03-23-2018

In the Matter of COVERCO, INC., Petitioner, v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, Respondent.

SCHRÖDER, JOSEPH & ASSOCIATES, LLP, BUFFALO (LINDA H. JOSEPH OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (ALLYSON B. LEVINE OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.


SCHRÖDER, JOSEPH & ASSOCIATES, LLP, BUFFALO (LINDA H. JOSEPH OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER.

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (ALLYSON B. LEVINE OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., CENTRA, CARNI, NEMOYER, AND CURRAN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Memorandum:Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annul the determination denying its 2014 application for certification as a woman-owned business enterprise (see generally 5 NYCRR 144.2 ). Petitioner contends that the determination that it failed to meet certain criteria used to determine whether a business is eligible to be certified as a woman-owned business enterprise was arbitrary and capricious because respondent failed to adhere to its determination in 2010 that granted petitioner such status, and failed to provide a sufficient explanation for failing to adhere to the prior determination. "Absent such an explanation, failure to conform to agency precedent will ... require reversal on the law as arbitrary, even though there is in the record substantial evidence to support the determination made" ( Matter of Charles A. Field Delivery Serv. [Roberts] , 66 N.Y.2d 516, 520, 498 N.Y.S.2d 111, 488 N.E.2d 1223 [1985] ). Here, however, petitioner did not meet its initial burden of establishing that "the same information was before respondent[ ] on both occasions" with respect to the eligibility criteria on which respondent based its determination ( Matter of Northeastern Stud Welding Corp. v. Webster , 211 A.D.2d 889, 890, 621 N.Y.S.2d 170 [3d Dept. 1995] ). Thus, petitioner has not established that "respondent[ ] failed to follow precedent when confronted with ‘essentially the same facts' " ( id. , quoting Charles A. Field Delivery Serv. , 66 N.Y.2d at 517, 498 N.Y.S.2d 111, 488 N.E.2d 1223 ).

Contrary to petitioner's further contention, viewing the record as a whole (see Matter of C.W. Brown Inc. v. Canton , 216 A.D.2d 841, 842, 628 N.Y.S.2d 851 [3d Dept. 1995] ), we conclude that respondent's determination is supported by substantial evidence inasmuch as petitioner failed to establish its eligibility with respect to ownership and control criteria set forth in 5 NYCRR 144.2(a)(1), (b)(1) and (c)(2) (see id. at 842–843, 628 N.Y.S.2d 851 ; Northeastern Stud Welding Corp. , 211 A.D.2d at 890–891, 621 N.Y.S.2d 170 ).

It is hereby ORDERED that the determination is unanimously confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed.


Summaries of

Coverco, Inc. v. N.Y.S. Dep't of Econ. Dev.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Mar 23, 2018
159 A.D.3d 1538 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)
Case details for

Coverco, Inc. v. N.Y.S. Dep't of Econ. Dev.

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of COVERCO, INC., Petitioner, v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Date published: Mar 23, 2018

Citations

159 A.D.3d 1538 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)
2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 2056
70 N.Y.S.3d 443

Citing Cases

In re A.A.C. Contracting, Inc.

Turning first to the issue of ownership, although petitioner alleged that Cannan purchased his 51st share of…

Campisi v. Shea

Petitioner also failed to carry his burden of establishing that respondent failed to follow precedent because…