The Law Lion Logo - AI-powered legal writing assistantThe Law Lion
Home
Features
Pricing
Services
AboutBlogCasesContact
Login
Ask Law Lion AI
  1. Home
  2. >Cases
  3. >In the Matter of United Environmental Techniques, Inc. v. State of New York Department of Health
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

In the Matter of United Environmental Techniques, Inc. v. State of New York Department of Health

0 citations

Table of Contents

  • Opinions
  • Opinions
  • Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Friedma...

Table of Contents

  • Opinions
  • Opinions
  • Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Friedma...

No summary available for this case.

Opinions

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Friedman, J.), entered on or about May 18, 1994, which granted petitioner’s application pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondent’s revocation of petitioner’s provisional approval as an asbestos safety training sponsor to the extent of remanding the matter to respondent for an administrative hearing, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent’s rule requiring cause for its revoking or suspending provisional as well as final approvals of asbestos training safety programs (10 NYCRR 73.9), and its failure to revoke, suspend or otherwise take any action with respect to petitioner’s provisional approval within the six-month maximum life span of such an approval (10 NYCRR 73.8 [a]), supported a legitimate claim of entitlement to continuation of the approval (see, Barry v Barchi, 443 US 55, 64, n 11; Richardson v Town of Eastover, 922 F2d 1152, 1158), which may be invoked at a postsuspension hearing (see, Barry v Barchi, supra, at 66). Under the three-pronged test set forth in Mathews v Eldridge (424 US 319, 335), petitioner’s interest in *237the continuation of its program is strong, having operated it for at least nine months, employed several people and made capital expenditures (see, Charry v Hall, 709 F2d 139); respondent’s interest in not conducting a postsuspension hearing is slight, graduates of petitioner’s training program being subject to respondent’s certification requirements before engaging in actual asbestos removal; and, as the decision to revoke was based on discrepancies in a class attendance record, a hearing at which the credibility of witnesses can be assessed, will reduce the risk of error. There is no merit to respondent’s other argument that petitioner’s possible lack of authority to do business in New York is a jurisdictional bar (Tri-Terminal Corp. v CITC Indus., 78 AD2d 609). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Rubin, Kupferman and Asch, JJ.

The Law Lion logoThe Law Lion.

The Law Lion is the only platform combining AI legal writing grounded in real case law with an expert human writing service — serving attorneys, paralegals, and everyday people nationwide.

info@thelawlion.com
Mon–Fri 9am–6pm EST · Rush available
Serving Clients Nationwide

AI Tool

  • → AI Legal Writing Tool
  • → AI Document Drafting
  • → Motion Drafting
  • → Contract Drafting
  • → Legal Research
  • → Case Law Search
  • → Citation Generator
  • → Document Review
  • → Contract Review
  • → For Lawyers

Writing Service

  • → Eviction Defense
  • → Court Documents
  • → Custody & Family
  • → Divorce Documents
  • → Debt & Collections
  • → All Writing Services

Top Guides

  • → Eviction Response Guide
  • → Best AI Legal Tools 2026
  • → Debt Validation Letter Guide

Company

  • → About The Law Lion
  • → Client Results
  • → Transparent Pricing
  • → Legal Guides & Blog
  • → Contact & Free Consult
  • → Affiliate Program

Top Services

  • → Eviction Notice Response
  • → Debt Validation Letter
  • → Court Summons Response
© 2026 The Law Lion LLC · AI Legal Writing & Expert Document Service
Privacy PolicyTerms of ServiceSitemap