John Arbuiso v. New York City Department of Buildings
In this Article 78 proceeding the Supreme Court of New York denied Petitioner’s request to annul respondent’s decision to deny petitioner’s application for reinstatement of his master plumber’s license.
In 1999 Petitioner’s master plumber’s license expired, seven years later he requested reinstatement. Through written correspondence with the New York City Department of Buildings (DOB) Petitioner informed the DOB that he had been working as a plumber from 1997 to 2005 at various positions. The DOB denied petitioner’s application and requested that petitioner show active and legal engagement in the plumbing field during the time that his license was expired.
After further correspondence from Petitioner about his work experience during the time his license was expired, the DOB concluded that Petitioner failed to clarify the legality of some of his work and his application was therefore denied. Petitioner then began an Article 78 proceeding, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court when they found that he failed to prove that Respondent’s decision was arbitrary and capricious.
The one dissenting judge in this case argues that the Respondent’s denial of Petitioner’s application was inconsistent with the Administrative Code because Petitioner did indeed provide the necessary proof that he had retained proficiency. To force the petitioner to further clarify work experience is beyond the scope of the Administrative Code.
To read about Article 78 cases go to http://www.sheerinlaw.com/?id=78.
For other interesting information in the personal injury file go to www.negligenceatty.com.