Legal Opinion

Maroti v. Hirst

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided January 24, 2012PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

The determination to deny petitioner’s application for a master rigger’s license had a rational basis. The record demonstrates that petitioner failed to present evidence that he gained the requisite qualifying experience under the direct and continuing supervision of a master rigger duly licensed in the City of New York for five of the seven years prior to the filing of the application (see Matter of Auringer v Department of Citywide Admin. Servs. of City of N.Y., 28 AD3d 381 [2006]; Administrative Code of City of NY §§ 28-404.1, 28-404.3.1).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Auringer v. Department of Citywide Administrative ServicesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2006

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Matter of Polakoff v. New York City Dept. of Bldgs.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2022

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API