You are here: / / Criteria for “Substantial Evidence” Review of an Administrative...
,

Criteria for “Substantial Evidence” Review of an Administrative Determination After a Hearing Explained

In annulling the ruling of the Housing Authority because it was not supported by substantial evidence, the Second Department explained its role in reviewing an administrative ruling after a hearing:

“Judicial review of an administrative determination made after a hearing required by law is limited to whether that determination is supported by substantial evidence” … . Substantial evidence has been defined as “such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact”… . While the level of proof is less than a preponderance of the evidence, substantial evidence does not arise from bare surmise, conjecture, speculation, or rumor …, or from the absence of evidence supporting a contrary conclusion … .

Here, the Housing Authority’s determination that the petitioner allowed her father to reside with her without notice to or approval from the Housing Authority in violation of the rules and regulations of the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program was not supported by substantial evidence. Matter of Harrison v Palumbo, 2014 NY Slip OP 07510, 2nd Dept 11-5-14

 

You might also like
THE MAJORITY HELD THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S BACKPACK WAS JUSTIFIED BECAUSE IT OCCURRED CLOSE IN TIME TO DEFENDANT’S ARREST ON THE STREET AND WAS JUSTIFIED BY EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES; THE DISSENT ARGUED THERE WAS NO PROOF THE BACKPACK WAS WITHIN THE GRABBABLE AREA AND NO PROOF OF EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES (SECOND DEPT).
PETITIONER’S APPLICATION TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION OF HIS RACE/NATIONALITY PROPERLY DENIED; EX PARTE ORDERS ARE NOT APPEALABLE, NOTICES OF APPEAL TREATED AS APPLICATIONS FOR REVIEW PURSUANT TO CPLR 5704 (a) (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; EVIDENCE OFFERED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN REPLY CAN BE CONSIDERED IF THE OPPOSING PARTY HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND (SECOND DEPT).
Involuntary Mental Health Patient Should Not Have Been Released Pursuant to a Habeas Corpus Petition Without an “Examination Into the Patient’s Alleged Disability and Detention,” Despite the Hospital’s Untimely Request for Continued Detention (in Violation of the Mental Hygiene Law)/Appellate Court’s Ability to Hear a Moot Case Explained (Mootness Doctrine)
Bank Account in Name “Ann … or Thomas…” Could Be Turned Over to Pay Debt Owed by Thomas 
SUPREME COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN GRANTING A PROTECTIVE ORDER ALLOWING THE PEOPLE TO DELAY DISCLOSURE OF EVIDENCE IN THIS MURDER CASE UNTIL ONE WEEK BEFORE TRIAL; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
THE MEDICAL CENTER WAS ENTITLED TO THE NO-FAULT INSURANCE BENEFITS ASSIGNED TO IT BY THE PEDESTRIAN INJURED BY PLAINTIFF’S TAXI; THE FACT THAT THE PEDESTRIAN HAD SETTLED HIS ACTION AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF TAXI COMPANY DID NOT HAVE ANY BEARING ON THE PLAINTIFF’S OBLIGATION TO PAY THE NO-FAULT BENEFITS TO THE MEDICAL CENTER (SECOND DEPT).
ZONING BOARD PROPERLY CONDUCTED A SEQRA REVIEW AND PROPERLY ISSUED A SUBSTANTIAL SETBACK VARIANCE, REVIEW CRITERIA EXPLAINED.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Effects of Taking Property “As Is,” the Implied Covenant of Fair... Insufficient Break Between Unwarned Statement and Subsequent Warned Statement—All...