You are here: / / NYC DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND BOARD OF HEALTH DID NOT VIOLATE THE SEPARATION...
, ,

NYC DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND BOARD OF HEALTH DID NOT VIOLATE THE SEPARATION OF POWERS BY PROMULGATING HEALTH CODE PROVISIONS REQUIRING YOUNG CHILDREN IN CITY REGULATED PROGRAMS TO RECEIVE FLU VACCINATIONS, NOR ARE THE CODE PROVISIONS PREEMPTED BY STATE LAW (CT APP).

The Court of Appeal, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, reversing the Appellate Division, determined that the NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene and the NYC Board of Health properly amended the health code to provide that children between the ages of 6 and 59 months who attended city regulated child care or school programs must receive annual flu vaccinations. The court went through all the Boreali (71 NY2d 11-14) factors, as well as all the preemption theories:

Separation of powers challenges often involve the question of whether a regulatory body has exceeded the scope of its delegated powers and encroached upon the legislative domain of policymaking … . * * *

In Boreali and subsequent cases, we have clarified the “difficult-to-define line between administrative rule-making and legislative policy-making” by articulating four “coalescing circumstances” relevant to rendering such a determination (71 NY2d at 11 …). These circumstances are: whether (1) the regulatory agency ” balanc[ed] costs and benefits according to preexisting guidelines,’ or instead made value judgments entail[ing] difficult and complex choices between broad policy goals to resolve social problems'”… ; (2) the agency “merely filled in details of a broad policy or if it wrote on a clean slate, creating its own comprehensive set of rules without benefit of legislative guidance'” … ; (3) the legislature had unsuccessfully attempted to enact laws pertaining to the issue… ; and (4) the agency used special technical expertise in the applicable field … . * * *

Public Health Law §§ 2164 and 2165 set forth mandatory vaccinations that are preconditions to enrollment in school and in institutions of higher education. Those statutes include exemptions, incorporate an appeal process, and explain the procedures to be followed when a student is unable to afford the necessary vaccinations. Taking each of the aforementioned statutes into consideration, the Appellate Division correctly determined that the flu vaccine rules are not preempted by state law. Garcia v New York City Dept. of Health & Mental Hygiene, 2018 NY Slip Op 04778, CtApp 6-28-18

​ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (FLU VACCINES, NYC DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND BOARD OF HEALTH DID NOT VIOLATE THE SEPARATION OF POWERS BY PROMULGATING HEALTH CODE PROVISIONS REQUIRING YOUNG CHILDREN IN CITY REGULATED PROGRAMS TO RECEIVE FLU VACCINATIONS, NOR ARE THE CODE PROVISIONS PREEMPTED BY STATE LAW (CT APP))/MUNICIPAL LAW (FLU VACCINES, NYC DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND BOARD OF HEALTH DID NOT VIOLATE THE SEPARATION OF POWERS BY PROMULGATING HEALTH CODE PROVISIONS REQUIRING YOUNG CHILDREN IN CITY REGULATED PROGRAMS TO RECEIVE FLU VACCINATIONS, NOR ARE THE CODE PROVISIONS PREEMPTED BY STATE LAW (CT APP))/FLU VACCINES (NYC DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND BOARD OF HEALTH DID NOT VIOLATE THE SEPARATION OF POWERS BY PROMULGATING HEALTH CODE PROVISIONS REQUIRING YOUNG CHILDREN IN CITY REGULATED PROGRAMS TO RECEIVE FLU VACCINATIONS, NOR ARE THE CODE PROVISIONS PREEMPTED BY STATE LAW (CT APP))/SEPARATION OF POWERS (FLU VACCINES, NYC DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND BOARD OF HEALTH DID NOT VIOLATE THE SEPARATION OF POWERS BY PROMULGATING HEALTH CODE PROVISIONS REQUIRING YOUNG CHILDREN IN CITY REGULATED PROGRAMS TO RECEIVE FLU VACCINATIONS, NOR ARE THE CODE PROVISIONS PREEMPTED BY STATE LAW (CT APP))/PREEMPTION (ADMINISTRATIVE LAW,  NYC DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND BOARD OF HEALTH DID NOT VIOLATE THE SEPARATION OF POWERS BY PROMULGATING HEALTH CODE PROVISIONS REQUIRING YOUNG CHILDREN IN CITY REGULATED PROGRAMS TO RECEIVE FLU VACCINATIONS, NOR ARE THE CODE PROVISIONS PREEMPTED BY STATE LAW (CT APP))/DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (NYC)  (FLU VACCINES, NYC DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND BOARD OF HEALTH DID NOT VIOLATE THE SEPARATION OF POWERS BY PROMULGATING HEALTH CODE PROVISIONS REQUIRING YOUNG CHILDREN IN CITY REGULATED PROGRAMS TO RECEIVE FLU VACCINATIONS, NOR ARE THE CODE PROVISIONS PREEMPTED BY STATE LAW (CT APP))

You might also like
HERE AN ALLEGED PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENT BY THE ROBBERY VICTIM, OFFERED AT TRIAL SOLELY FOR IMPEACHMENT, DID NOT RENDER THE EVIDENCE LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT; THE VICTIM WAS THE SOLE WITNESS TO TESTIFY ABOUT THE FACTS (CT APP). ​
FIDUCIARY EXCEPTION TO THE USUAL BURDEN OF PROOF IN A CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD ACTION DID NOT APPLY, FIDUCIARIES WERE NOT PARTIES TO THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND DID NOT STAND TO BENEFIT FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE DOCUMENTS.
DEFENDANT’S REFUSING TO TESTIFY WAS DEEMED A VIOLATION OF THE WRITTEN COOPERATION AGREEMENT, HIS MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY PLEA WAS PROPERLY DENIED (CT APP).
Defendant’s Inability to Participate in the Prison Sex Offender Treatment Program Based Upon His Disciplinary Record Should Not Have Been Deemed a “Refusal” to Participate in the Program
THE CRITERIA FOR A COURT-OF-APPEALS REVIEW OF AN APPELLATE DIVISION’S WEIGHT-OF-THE-EVIDENCE ANALYSIS IS EXPLAINED; HERE DEFENDANT’S MANSLAUGHTER CONVICTION, BASED ENTIRELY ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, WAS PROPERLY REVIEWED BY THE APPELLATE DIVISION, WHICH AFFIRMED THE CONVICTION (CT APP).
DEFENDANT HAD A RIGHT TO BE PRESENT DURING THE SANDOVAL/MOLINEUX DISCUSSIONS OF THE ADMISSIBILITY OF HIS PRIOR CONVICTIONS; THE FACT THAT THE JUDGE ANNOUNCED HIS SANDOVAL/MOLINEUX RULINGS IN THE DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE WAS NOT ENOUGH; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (CT APP).
FOR PURPOSES OF THE TEN-YEAR LOOK-BACK PERIOD FOR SECOND VIOLENT FELONY OFFENDER STATUS, THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL SENTENCE TO PROBATION, NOT THE DATE OF THE SUBSEQUENT SENTENCE FOR VIOLATION OF PROBATION, CONTROLS.
ONLY AN EXPRESS ACKNOWLEDEMENT OF THE MORTGAGE DEBT PURSUANT TO GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW 17-105 COULD REVIVE OR TOLL THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE REFERENCES TO THE MORTGAGE DEBT IN FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND TAX RETURNS PROVIDED TO THE MORTGAGOR BY THE MORTGAGEE WERE NOT ENOUGH (CT APP).

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

STRICT REQUIREMENTS FOR NOTIFICATION OF COUNSEL OF THE CONTENTS OF JURY NOTES... SKATER DID NOT ASSUME THE RISK CREATED BY A NEGLIGENTLY MAINTAINED ICE SURFACE...