| Matter of Guldal v Inta-Boro Two-Way Assn., Inc. |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 05555 [74 AD3d 1198] |
| June 22, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Suat Guldal, Appellant, v Inta-BoroTwo-Way Association, Inc., et al., Respondents. |
—[*1] Pike & Pike, P.C., Bellmore, N.Y. (Roberta Pike of counsel), for respondents.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondentsdated June 8, 2008, terminating the petitioner's driving privileges as a shareholder in therespondents' ground transportation cooperative and imposing a fine, the petitioner appeals (1)from stated portions of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Queens County(Nelson, J.), dated December 22, 2008, which, inter alia, denied the petition and dismissed theproceeding, and (2), as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the same court datedMay 1, 2009, as denied that branch of his motion which was for leave to renew.
Ordered that the order and judgment dated December 22, 2008, is affirmed insofar asappealed from; and it is further,
Ordered that the order dated May 1, 2009, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it isfurther,
Ordered that the respondents are awarded one bill of costs.
The Supreme Court properly denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding. Thepetitioner did not dispute that he committed the offenses alleged. This proceeding challenged thepenalty imposed. The respondents demonstrated that the determination to terminate thepetitioner's driving privileges and his right to receive radio dispatch calls was made inaccordance with their internal rules and procedures and, therefore, was not arbitrary andcapricious. No hearing or trial was required, since the petitioner failed to raise a factual issuewarranting a hearing or trial (see CPLR 7804 [h]; Matter of Civil Serv. Empls. Assn.,Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO v Rockland County Bd. of Coop. Educ. Servs., 39AD3d 641, 643 [2007]).
That branch of the petitioner's motion which was for leave to renew was properly denied,since he did not provide a reasonable justification for his failure to present the allegedly newfacts earlier (see Samet v Binson, 67 AD3d 989 [2009]).[*2]
The petitioner's remaining contentions are not properlybefore this Court (see Matter of Panetta v Carroll, 62 AD3d 1010 [2009]; Matter ofBlanco v Selsky, 45 AD3d 679, 680 [2007]; Green v New York City Police Dept.,34 AD3d 262, 263 [2006]). Skelos, J.P., Balkin, Roman and Sgroi, JJ., concur.