Case Name: In the Matter of AFP Holding, Inc., Petitioner, v. City of New York et al., Respondents
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2014-08-20
Citations: 120 A.D.3d 669
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of AFP Holding, Inc., Petitioner, v City of New York et al., Respondents.
Judges: Balkin, J.E, Leventhal, Maltese and LaSalle, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 120
Pages: 669–670

Head Matter:
In the Matter of AFP Holding, Inc., Petitioner, v City of New York et al., Respondents.
[990 NYS2d 877]

Opinion:
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determi nation of the Environmental Control Board of the City of New York, dated March 29, 2012, which confirmed a determination of an administrative law judge dated October 5, 2011, which, after a hearing, found that the petitioner violated Administrative Code of the City of New York § 28-105.1 by performing construction and/or repair work without a permit, and imposed a penalty in the sum of $1,600.
Adjudged that the determination dated March 29, 2012, is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.
The determination of the Environmental Control Board of the City of New York confirming the administrative law judge's determination that the petitioner violated Administrative Code of the City of New York § 28-105.1 by performing construction and/or repair work without a permit was supported by substantial evidence and, as such, will not be disturbed (see Administrative Code of City of NY § 28-105.1, 28-105.4, 28-105.4.2, 28-105.4.2.1 [8]; 48 RCNY 3-54 [a], [b]; see also Matter of E2CD, LLC v Appeals Unit of NYC Envtl. Control Bd., 116 AD3d 773 [2014]; Matter of Konstas v Environmental Control Bd. of City of N.Y., 104 AD3d 689, 690 [2013]; Matter of Aparicio v Environmental Control Bd. of City of N.Y., 83 AD3d 1054, 1055 [2011]; see generally Matter of Wagner v Fiala, 113 AD3d 694, 695 [2014]; Matter of R.I., Inc. v New York State Dept. of Labor, 72 AD3d 1098, 1098-1099 [2010]).
The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit.
Balkin, J.E, Leventhal, Maltese and LaSalle, JJ., concur.