MATTER OF INT'L FIDELITY INS. v. HARTNETT

Petitioner erroneously seeks to use this CPLR article 78 proceeding as a vehicle to determine the priority of the claims to the monies withheld by the Authority under the contract. Those issues were not raised at the administrative hearing. The scope of a CPLR article 78 proceeding, following an administrative hearing, is limited to review of the issues raised and addressed in that hearing (see, Matter of Simpson v Wolansky, 38 N.Y.2d 391; Matter of Nelson v Coughlin, 188 A.D.2d 1071, appeal dismissed 81 N.Y.2d 834; Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v Corcoran, 156 A.D.2d 167, 170). Moreover, there is no merit to petitioner's contention that respondent exceeded his jurisdiction in directing the Authority to issue a check for distribution to the underpaid workers "from the monies currently being withheld by the Authority on the contract" inasmuch as that action is authorized by Labor Law § 220-b (2) (e).