You are here: / / PROCEEDING UNDER REVIEW WAS NOT QUASI-JUDICIAL, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE STANDARD...
,

PROCEEDING UNDER REVIEW WAS NOT QUASI-JUDICIAL, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE STANDARD DID NOT APPLY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the “substantial evidence” standard did not apply to review of the Unified Court System’s finding that the court assistant (petitioner) was not asked to do out-of-title work. The “arbitrary and capricious” standard was the proper one:

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, “a substantial evidence’ question is presented only where a quasi-judicial evidentiary hearing has been held”… . The fact that the petitioner had the “right to be heard . . . and to present facts in support of [his] position” at a grievance meeting …did not render the grievance meeting “a quasi-judicial proceeding involving the cross-examination of witnesses and the making of a record within the meaning of CPLR 7803(4)”… . Since the administrative determination in this case was made after a grievance meeting, as opposed to a quasi-judicial evidentiary hearing, the court properly concluded that the relevant standard of review was whether the “determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law, or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion” … .

The petitioner further contends that the Deputy Director’s determination was arbitrary and capricious. “An action is arbitrary and capricious when it is taken without sound basis in reason or regard to the facts” … . “In applying the arbitrary and capricious’ standard, a court inquires whether the determination under review had a rational basis” … . Matter of Manning v New York State-Unified Ct. Sys., 2017 NY Slip Op 06077, Second Dept 8-9-17

 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (EVIDENCE, PROCEEDING UNDER REVIEW WAS NOT QUASI-JUDICIAL, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE STANDARD DID NOT APPLY (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, PROCEEDING UNDER REVIEW WAS NOT QUASI-JUDICIAL, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE STANDARD DID NOT APPLY (SECOND DEPT))/SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE (ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, PROCEEDING UNDER REVIEW WAS NOT QUASI-JUDICIAL, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE STANDARD DID NOT APPLY (SECOND DEPT))/ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS (ADMINISTRATIVE LAW,  PROCEEDING UNDER REVIEW WAS NOT QUASI-JUDICIAL, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE STANDARD DID NOT APPLY (SECOND DEPT))/QUASI-JUDICIAL (ADMINISTRATIVE LAW,  PROCEEDING UNDER REVIEW WAS NOT QUASI-JUDICIAL, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE STANDARD DID NOT APPLY (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
THE ARBITRATOR’S AWARD, REINSTATING NURSING HOME EMPLOYEES WHO WERE FIRED AND INDICTED FOR ALLEGEDLY IGNORING A RESIDENT IN RESPIRATORY DISTRESS, VIOLATED PUBLIC POLICY (SECOND DEPT).
EMAIL CALLING INTO QUESTION THE LEGITIMACY OF PLAINTIFF’S PHD PROTECTED BY QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE (SECOND DEPT).
14-Day Election Law Statute of Limitations, Not Article 78 Statute of Limitations, Applied
THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE SUPERVISORS’ FAILURE TO TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ON COMPLAINTS OF SEXUAL DISCRIMINATION BY THE COMPANY PRESIDENT CONSTITUTED AIDING AND ABETTING DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION.
AN UNSECURED LADDER THAT SLIPS OUT FROM UNDER THE PLAINTIFF WARRANTS SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
THE CLIMATOLOGICAL RECORDS WERE NOT CERTIFIED AS BUSINESS RECORDS AND THEREFORE COULD NOT BE RELIED UPON TO SHOW A STORM IN PROGRESS AT THE TIME OF THE SLIP AND FALL; PROOF OF A GENERAL INSPECTION ROUTINE COULD NOT BE RELIED UPON TO SHOW THE ABSENCE OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE BLACK ICE (SECOND DEPT).
Waiver of Appeal Invalid
Defense Counsel Should Have Been Present During Exchange Between Judge and Juror Which Resulted in Disqualification of Juror/Judge Should Have Disclosed Reason for Disqualification

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

ADMISSION OF A CHART SHOWING THE STRUCTURE AND MEMBERSHIP OF A GANG WAS (HARMLESS)... NO DUTY OF CARE OWED PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANTS DID NOT OWN, OCCUPY OR CONTROL THE...