Petitioner in this action applied for licensure as an architect, a profession that carries with it a requirement of good moral character. As Petitioner had earlier pleaded guilty to two counts of grand larceny in the second degree, upon review of his application it was determined that there was a substantial question as to his moral character.
Petitioner requested and was granted a hearing before a three-member panel of the State Board for Architecture. The Panel found that Petitioner had met the character requirement and recommended that his application be granted. However, the New York State Committee on the Professions [COP]) subsequently rejected the hearing panel's recommendation, concluding that Petitioner had not demonstrated the requisite good moral character required of a licensed architect.
Petitioner commenced a CPLR Article 78 proceeding challenging COP's decision to deny him licensure. Supreme Court transferred the proceeding to the Appellate Division which affirmed COP's determination.
Noting that "Under Correction Law §752, a license application shall not be denied or acted upon adversely by reason of the individual's having been previously convicted of one or more criminal offenses, or by reason of a finding of lack of good moral character when such finding is based upon the prior convictions, unless:
"(1) there is a direct relationship between one or more of the previous criminal offenses and the specific license sought; or
"(2) the issuance of the license would involve an unreasonable risk to the safety or welfare of specific individuals or the general public".
the Appellate Division observed that "In determining whether either of these exceptions applies, the licensing agency must consider a number of factors", citing Correction Law §753 [1] [a]-[h]).
The Appellate Division found that COP had analyzed the requisite statutory factors and concluded that both exceptions applied, i.e., Petitioner lacked good moral character by virtue of his criminal history in that the "crimes committed by [Petitioner] were serious in nature". In particular, the Court observed that COP determined that these crimes of dishonesty bore upon architectural responsibilities in that "an architect must display honesty and integrity and must make significant financial decisions that impact the client and the public at large".
Addressing Petitioner's proffered certificates of relief from disabilities, although these created a presumption of rehabilitation, the Appellate Division said that COP found that they were outweighed by other considerations including the seriousness of the crimes and Petitioner's minimizing of his culpability.
In the words of the Appellate Division, "In sum, given that COP assessed the statutory factors and its findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record", COP's determination will not be disturbed.
Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.