Pflaumer v. Board of Commissioners of Police Department of Village of Southampton, 45 N.Y.2d 754 (1978)

A licensing authority’s decision to deny a license based on prior criminal convictions is permissible under Correction Law § 752 if there is a direct relationship between the convictions and the license sought.

Summary

Pflaumer sought a license from the Southampton Police Department, which was initially disapproved. After Pflaumer requested reconsideration, the disapproval was upheld. The court held that the Board’s decision wasn’t an abuse of discretion because the misdemeanor convictions had a direct relationship to the license sought. The court cited Correction Law § 752, which allows for denial of a license if there’s a direct relationship between prior offenses and the license. The court also found that the Board’s consideration of information from other corporations, even if not disclosed to Pflaumer, did not violate due process.

Facts

The applicant, Pflaumer, applied for a license from the Board of Commissioners of the Police Department of the Village of Southampton. His initial application was disapproved. He requested reconsideration of the disapproval. The Board granted the request for reconsideration. After reconsidering the matter, the Board adhered to its original determination and denied the license. The Board considered information received from Rivinia Corporation and F & M Schaefer Corporation during its investigation.

Procedural History

The lower court ruled against Pflaumer. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s decision. The New York Court of Appeals then reviewed the Appellate Division’s order.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the Board of Commissioners abused its discretion by adhering to its original determination after granting Pflaumer’s request for reconsideration.
2. Whether the Board’s consideration of information received from other corporations, but not made available to Pflaumer, constituted a denial of due process.

Holding

1. No, because the misdemeanor convictions had a direct relationship to the license sought, making the Board’s decision permissible under Correction Law § 752.
2. No, because consideration of such information does not constitute a denial of due process based on existing precedent (Matter of Fink v Cole, 1 NY2d 48).

Court’s Reasoning

The court reasoned that while it would have been better practice for the Board to explicitly state that it considered the materials submitted during reconsideration, it was implicit in the Board’s statement that it had “granted your request for reconsideration of the disapproval.” The court emphasized that the Board’s adherence to its original decision was not an abuse of discretion, given the relationship between Pflaumer’s misdemeanor convictions and the license he was seeking. The court directly cited Correction Law § 752, which