Case Name: In the Matter of Ira J. Benlevi, Appellant, v. New York City Department of Buildings, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2017-05-09
Citations: 150 A.D.3d 451
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of Ira J. Benlevi, Appellant, v New York City Department of Buildings, Respondent.
Judges: Concur—Acosta, J.R, Renwick, Mazzarelli, Gische and Gesmer, JJ.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 150
Pages: 451–452

Head Matter:
In the Matter of Ira J. Benlevi, Appellant, v New York City Department of Buildings, Respondent.
[54 NYS3d 9]

Opinion:
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shlomo Hagler, J.), entered June 28, 2016, which denied the petition to annul the determination of respondent New York City Department of Buildings (DOB), dated January 26, 2016, and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, on the grounds that petitioner's revised penalty of the suspension of his filing privileges for three years and seven months was not excessive, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Given the circumstances of this case, that petitioner falsely represented that he was licensed to practice architecture when, during his six-month suspension from practice, he filed post-approval amendments with the DOB, petitioner's penalty of three years seven months was not "shocking to one's sense of fairness" (Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222, 237 [1974]). Despite the fact that petitioner's violations related to post-approval amendments to filings, and not new plans (cf. Matter of St. Clair Nation v City of New York, 14 NY3d 452, 454-455, 458 [2010]), the Supreme Court properly considered petitioner's continued refusal to acknowledge any wrongdoing in upholding the revised penalty (see Matter of Roman v New York City Dept. of Educ., 128 AD3d 590, 591 [1st Dept 2015]).
The article 78 proceeding was limited to petitioner's revised penalty, thus, his attempt to reargue the merits of his case are unavailing.
Concur—Acosta, J.R, Renwick, Mazzarelli, Gische and Gesmer, JJ.