Buildings refused to grant class A crane license after applicant failed to demonstrate that he possessed three years of experience under the direct supervision of a licensed machine operator. Leo Boccia applied to the Department of Buildings for a class A license to operate a hoisting machine. Boccia’s application included affidavits that showed he had been supervised from January 2011 to December 2014 by a class A license holder while completing class C2 set-ups. The affidavits also stated that Boccia was supervised by a class A license holder when he completed class A crane set-ups from October 2, 2014 to October 31, 2014. Buildings denied Boccia’s application and Boccia filed an article 78 petition asking the court to annul the determination of Buildings.
Judge Charles E. Ramos of the New York County Supreme Court granted Boccia’s petition to annul the denial of his application and remanded the matter back to Buildings for a new determination.
On remand, Buildings again denied the application for the class A license and the Appellate Division, First Department, upheld the denial of the license. Boccia failed to demonstrate that he possessed three years of experience using class A machinery under the supervision of an individual with a class A license as required by Buildings. All applicants for a class A basic hoisting machine operator license must have “at least three years of experience within the five years prior to application under the direct and continuing supervision of a licensed hoisting machine operator.” Boccia’s affidavits for the period of January 2011 to December 2014 were not sufficient because Boccia was licensed to operate only class C2 cranes independently and without supervision.
(CIT) Boccia v. New York City Dep’t of Buildings, 89 NYS3d 627 (2d Dep’t 2019).
By: Caitlin Larke (Caitlin is a New York Law School graduate, Class of 2019).