Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
In accord with a prior decision and order of this Court (see, Matter of Troise v. Smith, 141 A.D.2d 826), the respondent Commissioner issued a determination explaining why he departed from prior precedent in concluding that the petitioner's ownership of a plumbing trade school was in conflict with the proper discharge of his official duties as a New York City plumbing inspector (see, Matter of Field Delivery Serv. [Roberts], 66 N.Y.2d 516, 517; New York City Charter § 2604 [c] [1]). Specifically, the Commissioner, in his decision, accurately observed that the only prior case involving similar factual circumstances arose almost 10 years earlier, under a different Commissioner, who apparently failed to take any action against a plumbing inspector who also owned a plumbing trade school. The Commissioner further explained that his current policy was one of strict adherence to relevant ethical standards and that a single matter, occurring years earlier under another Commissioner, could not be considered binding upon him.
We agree that, under the circumstances presented here, the Commissioner has provided a reasonable explanation supporting his decision to enforce the conflict of interest rules with respect to the petitioner's ownership of a trade school. Thompson, J.P., Santucci, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.