SUPREMECOURT,APPELLATEDIVISIONFIRSTDEPARTMENT
APRIL26,2012
THECOURTANNOUNCESTHEFOLLOWINGDECISIONS:
Gonzalez,P.J.,Mazzarelli,Andrias,Sweeny,Manzanet-Daniels,JJ.
6391InreJerryDelakas,Petitioner-Appellant,Index100739/11-against-JonathanMintz,etc.,Respondent-Respondent.Santamarina&Associates,NewYork(GilSantamarinaofcounsel),forappellant.MichaelA.Cardozo,CorporationCounsel,NewYork(AlyseFioriofcounsel),forrespondent.Orderandjudgment(onepaper),SupremeCourt,NewYorkCounty(CynthiaS.Kern,J.),enteredApril4,2011,whichdeniedthepetitionanddismissedaCPLRarticle78proceedingtoannulandvacaterespondent'sdetermination,datedJanuary6,2011,denyingpetitioner'sapplicationtorenewalicensetooperateanexistingnewsstand,affirmed,withoutcosts.Respondent'sdeterminationthatpetitionerdoesnotqualifyforalicensepursuantto6RCNY
§
2-64(a)(12)hasarationalbasis
(seeMatterofWooleyvNewYorkStateDept.ofCorrectionalServs.,
15NY3d275,280[2010]).Asthedissent
pointsout,6RCNY
§
2-64(a)(12)mandatesthreerequirementsthatmustbemetbeforealicensetooperateanewsstandmaybeassigneduponthedeathordisabilityofthenamedlicenseholder.Evenacursoryreviewofthefirstsubsectionshowsthatpetitionerdoesnotqualify.Itreads:U(A)theapplicantisadependentspouse,dependentdomesticpartner,dependentchildorone-timeemployeeoftheformerlicensee,orbearsanotherpre-existing,establishedrelationshiptosuchformerlicenseethatincludedfinancialdependenceonsuchlicensee."Petitionerhadbeenpayingamonthlyrenttosuccessiveownersoftheoperatinglicensesince1987.Heneversoughtthelicenseinhisownnameuntilthelastnamedlicenseepassedawayandhecouldnolongercontinuetheimproperrelationship.Thus,itwasthelicense,andnotanyofthethreepreviousholders,onwhichpetitionerwasdependent.
1
Finally,althoughnotnecessaryforthisdetermination,itwascertainlyarationalconclusionthatpetitionerhadtobeawareoftheillicit,underthetablearrangementhefacilitatedbyhispaymentstothreeseparateownersbeginningasfarbackas1987;eachownersubmittedswornstatementsthathe/shewastheoperatorofthenewsstandwhilepetitioneropenlyoperatedit.lAspetitionerdoesnotmeetthefirstrequirementof
§
2-64(a)(12),itisnotnecessarytoaddresstheothertwo.
2
Thedissentrecognizesthatourreviewofthismatterislimitedtowhetherthereisanyrationalbasisforrespondent'sdetermination.Regardlessofwhetherweagreewithit,onthisrecord,itcannotbesaidthatrespondent'sdeterminationisirrational.Petitionerisfreetoseekalicenseunderhisownname(6RCNY
§
2-64(1)(11)).Hejustmaynotjumpaheadofthosewhoaregivenpriorityasamatteroflaw.Wehavereviewedpetitioner'sremainingcontentionsandfindthemunavailing.AllconcurexceptMazzarelliandAndrias,JJ.whodissentinanmemorandum
by
Andrias,J.asfollows:
3
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
Jerry Delakas appeal
339
Reads
0
Readcasts
688
Embed Views
Get Scribd Mobile
To get Scribd mobile enter your number and we'll send you a link to the Scribd app for iPhone & Android.We've sent a link to the Scribd app. If you didn't receive it, try again.
We'll never share your phone number.
Recommended
More From This User
Notes
Load more
