Article 78 proceeding to compel acceptance of Fire Suppression application denied

Matter of Karl v. NYC Department of Citywide Administrative Services

This Article 78 proceeding was brought about by Petitioner, Brian Karl, to compel New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services (DCAS) to accept his application for a Master Fire Suppression Piping Contractor (Fire Suppression). Petitioner is a Master Plumber who has been installing fire suppression systems under the supervision of a Licensed Master Plumber for 12 years.

 

Prior to 1990, licensed Master Plumbers were permitted to install fire suppression systems. Then the law changed so that only a specifically licensed Master Fire Suppression Piping Contractor could work with fire suppression systems. On July 1, 2008, the requirements for a Fire Suppression license changed from requiring 7 years of plumbing experience with at least 3 years in fire suppression experience to requiring 7 years of fire suppression experience within the ten-year period prior to the application.

 

Petitioner met the requirements of the old law but not the new one and attempted to file an application for the next Fire Suppression license exam, hoping to qualify for the license under the old rules. DCAS declined to accept his application because the 2008 exam had already passed and no date had been set for the 2009 exam. Petitioner then commenced this proceeding in the nature of mandamus to compel the city to accept his application.

 

Petitioner Karl argued that DCAS had a duty to accept his application when he sought to file it in May 2008. The Court asserts that mandamus relief is not available because there is not “a clear and absolute legal right to the relief sought.” Karl failed to cite any statute or regulation that would support his claim that he had a clear legal right to file an application in May or that DCAS had an absolute duty to accept it at that time. Also, the Rules of the City of New York place the burden of acquiring information concerning exams and new laws solely on the applicant making Karl’s argument that he was entitled to advance notice obsolete.

 

Accordingly, the Supreme Court denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

 

Trackbacks (0) Links to blogs that reference this article Trackback URL
http://civilservice.sheerinlaw.com/admin/trackback/92859
Comments (0) Read through and enter the discussion with the form at the end
Post A Comment / Question Use this form to add a comment to this entry.







Remember personal info?
Send To A Friend Use this form to send this entry to a friend via email.