Sei sulla pagina 1di 3



0DWWHURI)RUPLFD&RQVWUY0LQW]$'G

Lexis Advance

Research

More

Document:Matter of Formica Constr. v. Mintz, 65 A.D.3d 686

Actions

MatterofFormicaConstr.v.Mintz,65A.D.3d686
CopyCitation
SupremeCourtofNewYork,AppellateDivision,SecondDepartment
August25,2009,Decided
200803701
Reporter
65A.D.3d686|885N.Y.S.2d298|2009N.Y.App.Div.LEXIS6187|2009NYSlipOp6325

IntheMatterofFormicaConstruction,Inc.,etal.,Respondents,vJonathanMintz,Appellant.(IndexNo.80357/07)

PriorHistory:MatterofFormicaConstructionInc.v.Mintz,2008N.Y.Misc.LEXIS8956(N.Y.Sup.Ct.,Mar.17,2008)

CoreTerms
license,renew,criminaloffense,homeimprovement,contractor'slicense,petitioners',setforth,annulled,factors,trench,specificindividual,statutoryfactors,
licensingagency,generalpublic,interalia,responsibilities,applicant's,occurrence,collapsed,convicted,directing,modified,remitted,appeals,duties

CaseSummary
ProceduralPosture
RespondentNewYorkCityDepartmentofConsumerAffairs(DCA)appealedanorderandjudgmentbytheRichmondCountySupremeCourt(NewYork)that
grantedpetitionercontractor'sapplicationtorenewitshomeimprovementcontractorlicense,annulledtheDCA'sdetermination,anddirectedittograntthe
application.

Overview
Afteroneofthecontractor'sprincipalswasincarceratedforcriminallynegligenthomicide,involvingafailuretocomplywithsafetyregulationsregardingtrenches,
thecontractor'sapplicationtorenewitshomeimprovementcontractorlicensewasdenied.Theappellatecourtfound,interalia,thatthereasoningtheDCA
articulatedinitsanswertothecontractor'spetitiondidnotreflectthatitconsideredalleightofthefactorssetforthinCorrectionLaw753(1).Accordingly,the
trialcourtproperlyannulledtheDCA'sdeterminationdenyingtheapplication.However,becausethetrialcourtshouldhaveremittedthemattertotheDCAfor
considerationofthestatutoryfactorsandanewdeterminationofthecontractor'sapplicationtorenewitslicenseunderCorrectionLaw752,iterredindirecting
theDCAtogranttheapplication.

Outcome
TheorderandjudgmentweremodifiedbydeletingtheprovisionthereofdirectingtheDCAtogranttheapplicationandsubstitutingthereforaprovisionremitting
thematterforanewdeterminationoftheapplicationassomodified,theorderandjudgmentwereaffirmed.

LexisNexisHeadnotes

CriminalLaw&Procedure>CriminalOffenses
Governments>LocalGovernments

>MiscellaneousOffenses

>GeneralOverview

>Licenses

KWWSVDGYDQFHOH[LVFRPGRFXPHQWGRFXPHQWOLQN"SGPILG  FULG IFDDHIHDHDGHHHG SGGRFIXOOSDWK )VKDUHG)GRFXPHQW





0DWWHURI)RUPLFD&RQVWUY0LQW]$'G

HN1

CorrectionLawart.23Asetsforththeconditionsunderwhichalicensingagencymaydenyalicenseduetoanapplicant'scriminalconviction,and

enumeratesthefactorsthattheagencymustconsiderinreviewingtheapplicant'scriminalhistory.CorrectionLaw750753.ShepardizeNarrowbythis
Headnote

CriminalLaw&Procedure>CriminalOffenses
Governments>LocalGovernments
HN2

>MiscellaneousOffenses

>GeneralOverview

>Licenses

PursuanttoCorrectionLaw752,alicenseapplicationmaybedeniedwherethereisadirectrelationshipbetweenapreviouscriminaloffenseandthe

specificlicenseoremploymentsought.CorrectionLaw752(1),orwheretheissuanceofthelicensewouldinvolveanunreasonablerisktopropertyortothe
safetyorwelfareofspecificindividualsorthegeneralpublic.CorrectionLaw752(2).ShepardizeNarrowbythisHeadnote

CriminalLaw&Procedure>CriminalOffenses
Governments>LocalGovernments
HN3

>MiscellaneousOffenses

>GeneralOverview

>Licenses

CorrectionLaw753(1)providesthat,inmakingadeterminationpursuanttoCorrectionLaw752,alicensingagencyshallconsiderthefollowing

factors:(a)thepublicpolicyofthestate,asexpressedintheCorrectionLaw,toencouragethelicensureandemploymentofpersonspreviouslyconvictedofoneor
morecriminaloffenses(b)thespecificdutiesandresponsibilitiesnecessarilyrelatedtothelicensesought(c)thebearing,ifany,thecriminaloffenseforwhich
thepersonwaspreviouslyconvictedwillhaveonhisfitnessorabilitytoperformoneormoresuchdutiesorresponsibilities(d)thetimewhichhaselapsedsincethe
occurrenceofthecriminaloffense(e)theageofthepersonatthetimeofoccurrenceofthecriminaloffense(f)theseriousnessoftheoffense(g)evidenceof
rehabilitationandgoodconductand(h)thepublicagency'slegitimateinterestinprotectingthesafetyandwelfareofspecificindividualsandthegeneral
public.ShepardizeNarrowbythisHeadnote

Governments>LocalGovernments
HN4

>Licenses

InreviewinganapplicationtorenewahomeimprovementcontractorlicensebaseduponCorrectionLaw752,theNewYorkCityDepartmentof

ConsumerAffairsmustfirstconsiderallofthefactorssetforthinCorrectionLaw753(1),andthenmakeanewdetermination.ShepardizeNarrowbythis
Headnote

Headnotes/Syllabus

Headnotes
LicensesHomeImprovementContractors.WhereDepartmentofConsumerAffairs(DCA)deniedapplicationtorenewpetitioner'shomeimprovementcontractor
(HIC)licenseongroundthatoneofpetitioner'sprincipalshadrecentfelonyconvictionthatwasrelatedtolicensesought,butDCAdidnotindicatethatit
consideredalleightstatutoryfactorssetforthinCorrectionLaw753(1),SupremeCourtproperlyannulledDCA'sdeterminationdenyingapplicationhowever,
SupremeCourterredindirectingDCAtograntpetitioner'sapplicationtorenewHIClicenseinreviewingapplicationtorenewHIClicensebaseduponCorrection
Law752,DCAmustfirstconsideralloffactorssetforthinCorrectionLaw753(1),andthenmakenewdeterminationthus,SupremeCourtshouldhave
remittedmattertoDCAforconsiderationofstatutoryfactorsandnewdeterminationofapplicationtorenewHIClicense.

Counsel:MichaelA.Cardozo

JohnZ.Marangos

,CorporationCounsel,NewYork,N.Y.(LarryA.Sonnenshein

,StatenIsland,N.Y.(DeniseMarangos

Judges:MARKC.DILLON

,J.P.,HOWARDMILLER

andJulianL.Kalksteinofcounsel),forappellant.

ofcounsel),forrespondents.

,JOHNM.LEVENTHAL

,CHERYLE.CHAMBERS

,JJ.DILLON,J.P.,MILLER

,LEVENTHAL

andCHAMBERS

JJ.,concur.

Opinion
[686]
InaproceedingpursuanttoCPLRarticle78,interalia,toreviewadeterminationoftheNewYorkCityDepartmentofConsumerAffairsdatedJuly18,2007,which
deniedthepetitioners'applicationtorenewahomeimprovementcontractorlicense,JonathanMintz,Commissioner,NewYorkCityDepartmentofConsumerAffairs,
appeals,aslimitedbyhisbrief,fromsomuchofanorderandjudgment(onepaper)oftheSupremeCourt,RichmondCounty(Maltese,J.),datedMarch17,2008,as
grantedthepetition,annulledthedetermination,anddirectedtheNewYorkCityDepartmentofConsumerAffairstogranttheapplicationtorenewthepetitioners'home
improvementcontractorlicense.

KWWSVDGYDQFHOH[LVFRPGRFXPHQWGRFXPHQWOLQN"SGPILG  FULG IFDDHIHDHDGHHHG SGGRFIXOOSDWK )VKDUHG)GRFXPHQW





0DWWHURI)RUPLFD&RQVWUY0LQW]$'G

Orderedthattheorderandjudgmentismodified,onthelaw,bydeletingtheprovisionthereofdirectingtheNewYorkCityDepartmentofConsumerAffairstograntthe
applicationtorenewthepetitioners'homeimprovementcontractorlicenseandsubstitutingthereforaprovisionremittingthemattertotheNewYorkCityDepartment
ofConsumerAffairsforanewdeterminationoftheapplicationtorenewthesubjecthomeimprovementcontractorlicenseassomodified,theorderandjudgmentis
affirmedinsofarasappealedfrom,withoutcostsordisbursements.
ThepetitionersKennethFormica,hisbrotherWilliamFormica,Jr.,andtheirmotherRosemarieFormica,aretheprincipalsofFormicaConstruction,Inc.(hereinafterFCI),
a[687]familyoperatedbusiness.ThepetitionerKennethFormica(hereinafterFormica)pleadedguiltytocriminallynegligenthomicideafteratrenchexcavatedbyhim
collapseduponandkilledaworkerwhowasinthetrenchatFormica'sdirection.Formicaadmittedthathedidnotshorethetrench,asrequiredbyregulations
promulgatedpursuanttothefederalOccupationalSafetyandHealthAct(29USC651etseq.),topreventitfromcollapsing.Whileservinghissentenceof16
weekendsinjail,FormicaappliedtorenewFCI'shomeimprovementcontractor(hereinafterHIC)licensewiththeNewYorkCityDepartmentofConsumerAffairs
(hereinaftertheDCA).TheDCAdeniedtheapplication.FCI,Formica,hisbrotherWilliam,andhismotherRosemariecommencedthisproceedingpursuanttoCPLRarticle
78toreviewthatdetermination.TheSupremeCourt,interalia,grantedthepetition,annulledtheDCA'sdetermination,anddirectedtheDCAtograntthepetitioners'
application.JonathanMintz,CommissioneroftheDCA,appeals.
HN1

CorrectionLawarticle23Asetsforththeconditionsunderwhichalicensingagencymaydenyalicenseduetoanapplicant'scriminalconviction,and

enumeratesthefactorsthattheagencymustconsiderinreviewingtheapplicant'scriminalhistory(seeCorrectionLaw750,751,752,753).HN2

Pursuantto

CorrectionLaw752,alicenseapplicationmaybedeniedwherethereis"adirectrelationshipbetween[thepreviouscriminaloffense]andthespecificlicenseor
employmentsought"(CorrectionLaw752[1]),orwheretheissuanceofthelicensewouldinvolvean"unreasonablerisktopropertyortothesafetyorwelfareof
specificindividualsorthegeneralpublic"(CorrectionLaw752[2]).HN3

CorrectionLaw753(1)providesthat,inmakingadeterminationpursuanttoCorrection

Law752,thelicensingagencyshallconsiderthefollowingfactors:(a)thepublicpolicyofthisstate,asexpressedintheCorrectionLaw,toencouragethelicensure
andemploymentofpersonspreviouslyconvictedofoneormorecriminaloffenses(b)thespecificdutiesandresponsibilitiesnecessarilyrelatedtothelicensesought(c)
thebearing,ifany,thecriminaloffenseforwhichthepersonwaspreviouslyconvictedwillhaveonhisfitnessorabilitytoperformoneormoresuchdutiesor
responsibilities(d)thetimewhichhaselapsedsincetheoccurrenceofthecriminaloffense(e)theageofthepersonatthetimeofoccurrenceofthecriminaloffense
(f)theseriousnessoftheoffense(g)evidenceofrehabilitationandgoodconductand(h)thepublicagency'slegitimateinterestinprotectingthesafetyandwelfareof
specificindividualsandthegeneralpublic.
Here,theDCAdeniedtheapplicationtorenewFCI'sHIC[688]licenseonthegroundthatFormicahadarecentfelonyconvictionthatwasrelatedtothelicense
sought.TheDCAdidnotsetforthitsreasoningforitsdeterminationuntilitwascompelledtodosobythecommencementofthisproceeding.Thereasoningthatthe
DCAarticulatedinitsanswertothepetitiondoesnotreflectthatitconsideredalleightstatutoryfactorssetforthinCorrectionLaw753(1).Accordingly,theSupreme
CourtproperlyannulledtheDCA'sdeterminationdenyingtheapplication.
However,theSupremeCourterredindirectingtheDCAtograntthepetitioner'sapplicationtorenewtheHIClicense.HN4

Inreviewingtheapplicationtorenewthe

HIClicensebaseduponCorrectionLaw752,theDCAmustfirstconsiderallofthefactorssetforthinCorrectionLaw753(1),andthenmakeanewdetermination.
Thus,theSupremeCourtshouldhaveremittedthemattertotheDCAforconsiderationofthestatutoryfactorsandanewdeterminationoftheapplicationtorenewthe
HIClicense.
Theappellant'sremainingcontentionisnotproperlybeforethisCourt.Dillon,J.P.,Miller,Leventhal

Jump To

andChambers,JJ.,concur.

KWWSVDGYDQFHOH[LVFRPGRFXPHQWGRFXPHQWOLQN"SGPILG  FULG IFDDHIHDHDGHHHG SGGRFIXOOSDWK )VKDUHG)GRFXPHQW