Matter of Harouche v. Adduci, 54 N.Y.2d 690 (1981)

Due process requires that a notice of potential license revocation be reasonably calculated, under all circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the action’s pendency and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.

Summary

Harouche, a licensed rigger, had his license suspended and was notified that it could be permanently revoked if he did not explain his refusal to reveal job locations and his failure to keep required test records. He argued that the notice was insufficient and that he did not waive his right to a hearing. The New York Court of Appeals held that the notice was adequate because it informed him of the nature of the proceedings, the potential consequences, and his right to be heard. The court emphasized that the notice used plain language understandable to a person of normal intelligence.

Facts

Following an accident involving one of his employees, Harouche, a licensed rigger, voluntarily testified before a board of inquiry. At a later session, under subpoena, he refused to answer questions regarding scaffold test records and the locations of his other jobs.
Four days later, he received a letter stating his license was suspended for five days due to his refusal to provide information and failure to maintain records. The letter further warned that his license would be permanently revoked if he did not provide a proper explanation by a specific date and offered him the opportunity to contact the Director for a hearing.

Procedural History

The Supreme Court initially ruled in favor of the Department of Buildings.
The Appellate Division reversed, finding the notice of the hearing unacceptable.
The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, reinstating the Supreme Court’s original judgment.

Issue(s)

Whether the letter sent to Harouche constituted adequate notice of his right to a hearing before his rigging license could be permanently revoked.

Holding

Yes, because the notice was reasonably calculated to inform Harouche of the proceedings against him, the potential consequences, and his right to be heard, thus satisfying due process requirements.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals relied on the standard articulated in Mullane v. Central Hanover Trust Co., which requires “notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” The court found that the letter met this standard because it:

<ol>
<li>Was received by the petitioner.</li>
<li>Informed him of the nature of the proceedings and potential consequences.</li>
<li>Informed him of his right to be heard and the steps to take to exercise that right.</li>
<li>Was written in plain, understandable language.</li>
</ol>

The court emphasized the clear warning in the letter: “Should you fail to properly explain your actions by July 21, 1978 your special riggers license will be revoked permanently.” The court concluded that the petitioner’s failure to act on the notice could not be excused, even if other words might have been chosen. The key is that the notice provided a clear opportunity to be heard before the license revocation. The court focused on the practical effect of the notice, finding it sufficient to inform a reasonable person of their rights and the consequences of inaction. The court implied that Harouche’s choice to ignore the notice equated to a waiver of his right to a hearing.