You are here: / / THE MEANING OF ‘SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE’ SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT...
,

THE MEANING OF ‘SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE’ SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A DETERMINATION IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in confirming the Commissioner of Public Safety’s termination of General Municipal Law 207-a benefits for an injured firefighter, explained what the term “substantial evidence” means in the context of an administrative hearing:

… [A]fter an examination, the respondents’ medical examiner found that the petitioner was capable of returning to light duty and that there would be a “medium to moderate” chance that he would be able to resume full duty if he underwent spinal fusion surgery. Thereafter, the respondents’ fire chief sent the petitioner a letter ordering him to return to work … , to assume a light duty position, or risk losing his benefits. A second letter … directed the petitioner to schedule the fusion surgery. The petitioner did not return to work … , and did not undergo surgery, choosing instead to proceed with a challenge of the return to work order.

After a hearing, the hearing officer concluded that the fire chief’s orders were “reasonable and rational,” and that the petitioner’s failure to comply with those orders was without justification. The respondents adopted the recommendations of the hearing officer. The petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to review the determination.

The petitioner argues that the respondents’ determination is not supported by substantial evidence. We disagree. “Substantial evidence means more than a mere scintilla of evidence and the test of whether substantial evidence exists in a record is one of rationality, taking into account all the evidence on both sides”… . Matter of Sestito v City of White Plains, 2018 NY Slip Op 03528, Second Dept 5-16-18

​ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (EVIDENCE, THE MEANING OF ‘SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE’ SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A DETERMINATION IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, THE MEANING OF ‘SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE’ SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A DETERMINATION IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE (ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, THE MEANING OF ‘SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE’ SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A DETERMINATION IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT)

You might also like
INFECTING A VICTIM WITH HIV CONSTITUTES “PHYSICAL INJURY” WITHIN THE MEANING OF RISK FACTOR 1 RE: THE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT; HOWEVER THE FINDING THAT DEFENDANT IN FACT INFECTED THE VICTIM WITH HIV WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE ALLEGED DEFENDANT ATTORNEY NEGLIGENTLY FAILED TO PURSUE DAMAGES IN EXCESS OF THE POLICY LIMITS AGAINST THE TORTFEASOR PERSONALLY; DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF WOULD NOT HAVE PREVAILED AGAINST THE TORTFEASOR PERSONALLY; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
LAW OFFICE FAILURE DEEMED AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE, MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT HAVE DESTROYED THE UNDERGROUND OIL TANKS WHICH WERE ALLEGED TO HAVE LEAKED, CONTAMINATING PLAINTIFF’S PROPERTY; HOWEVER THE DEFENDANT OIL COMPANIES DID NOT DEMONSRTATE THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TANKS MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE A DEFENSE; THEREFORE AN ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION, NOT THE STRIKING OF THE COMPLAINT, WAS THE APPROPRIATE SANCTION (SECOND DEPT).
DEFAMATION PLEADING INSUFFICIENT, STATEMENT ENJOYED QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE, INTERNET POST WAS NONACTIONABLE OPINION (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS INTERSECTION ACCIDENT CASE, WHETHER DEFENDANT STOPPED BEFORE ENTERING PLAINTIFF’S RIGHT OF WAY WAS NOT DISPOSITIVE.
INSUFFICIENT PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE 90 DAY NOTICE MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL), PLAINTIFF BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SET ASIDE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, DEFENDANTS WERE NOT ALLOWED TO CROSS EXAMINE PLAINTIFF’S EXPERTS ABOUT THE POSSIBLE NEGLIGENCE OF TWO NON-PARTY DOCTORS WHO ALSO TREATED PLAINTIFF, IN ADDITION, PLAINTIFF’S EXPERTS WERE NOT SHOWN TO BE QUALIFIED TO OFFER OPINION EVIDENCE CONCERNING EMERGENCY MEDICINE (SECOND DEPT).

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

CITY DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT CREATE, EXACERBATE OR HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE... DEFENDANT ATTORNEYS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFFS SUFFERED NO DAMAGES AS A...