| Matter of Small v City of N.Y. Dept. of Sanitation |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 04799 [74 AD3d 828] |
| June 1, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Robert Small, Appellant, v City of NewYork Department of Sanitation et al., Respondents. |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Kristin M. Helmers andDeborah A. Brenner of counsel), for respondents.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York CityEnvironmental Control Board dated June 12, 2008, which confirmed a determination of ahearing officer, made after a hearing, that the petitioner obstructed the sidewalk in violation ofAdministrative Code of the City of New York § 16-118 (2) (a) on September 16, 2007,and November 25, 2007, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, QueensCounty (Cullen, J.), entered May 20, 2009, which denied the petition and, in effect, dismissedthe proceeding.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Generally, judicial review of an administrative determination made after a hearing requiredby law, and at which evidence was taken, is limited to whether that determination is supportedby substantial evidence (see CPLR 7803 [4]; 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div.of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 179 [1978]; Matter of 105 Northgate Coop. v Donaldson, 54 AD3d 414, 416[2008]; Matter of New Venture GearInc. v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 41 AD3d 1265, 1266 [2007]). Here, thepetitioner seeks review of an administrative determination made by the New York CityEnvironmental Control Board (hereinafter the ECB) after a hearing required by law, and atwhich evidence was taken (see CPLR 7803 [4]). However, the petition does notchallenge the ECB's determination on the ground that it was unsupported by substantialevidence, but alleges only constitutional violations and other legal error. Accordingly, ourreview is limited to whether the ECB's determination was arbitrary and capricious because itexceeded the ECB's statutory "authority or [was made] in violation of the Constitution or thelaws of this State" (Matter of Pasieka vNew York City Tr. Auth., 31 AD3d 769, 770 [2006]; see Matter of New York CityDept. of Envtl. Protection v New York City Civ. Serv. Commn., 78 NY2d 318, 324 [1991];Matter of Lipani v New York State Div.of Human Rights, 56 AD3d 560, 561 [2008]).
The petitioner failed to establish that the ECB's determination exceeded its statutoryauthority or was made in violation of the Constitution or the laws of this State. Thus, theSupreme Court properly denied the petition and, in effect, dismissed the proceeding (seeMatter of Pasieka v New York City Tr. Auth., 31 AD3d at 770; cf. Matter of Lipani vNew York State Div. of Human [*2]Rights, 56 AD3d at561). Rivera, J.P., Florio, Miller and Austin, JJ., concur.