You are here: / / PETITIONER, A NOT-FOR-PROFIT LOCAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, WAS PROPERLY...
, ,

PETITIONER, A NOT-FOR-PROFIT LOCAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, WAS PROPERLY FOUND TO BE SO CLOSELY AFFILIATED WITH LOCAL GOVERNMENT AS TO MEET THE DEFINITION OF A “LOCAL AUTHORITY” SUBJECT TO THE REPORTING AND OVERSIGHT REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK AUTHORITIES BUDGET OFFICE (THIRD DEPT).

​The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the petitioner, a non-for-profit local development corporation, was a “local authority” subject to the reporting and oversight requirements of the respondent State of New York Authorities Budget Office:

… [W]e find that respondent rationally concluded that petitioner is a local authority, in that there is a “close relationship between petitioner and local governments” and petitioner “is the type of entity that the Legislature intended to subject to the provisions of the PAAA” [Public Authorities Accountability Act]. Notably, the purposes of the PAAA and the PARA [Public Authorities Reform Act] include remedying public concerns about transparency and accountability of entities that, like petitioner, “work[ ] with public and private sector partners to spur economic development and meet public needs” … . Matter of Saratoga Economic Dev. Corp. v State of N.Y. Auths. Budget Office, 2023 NY Slip Op 06292, 11-7-23

Practice Point: The State of New York Authorities Budget Office’s administrative determination that petitioner not-for-profit development corporation was a “local authority” subject to the Budget Office’s oversight was not arbitrary and capricious. Supreme Court should not have annulled the determination.

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS GUILTY PLEA; DEFENDANT WAS TOLD BY DEFENSE COUNSEL THAT DEPORTATION BASED ON THE PLEA WAS POSSIBLE, BUT HE WAS NOT TOLD IT WAS MANDATORY; DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED HE MAY HAVE DECIDED TO GO TO TRIAL IF HE HAD BEEN AWARE OF THE MANDATORY DEPORTATION (THIRD DEPT).
Question of Fact Whether Defendants Assumed a Duty of Reasonable Care When Escorting Elderly Plaintiff to His Car at Night
THE NUMBER OF FIREFIGHTERS WHICH MUST BE ON DUTY DURING A SHIFT IS A HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUE, WHICH IS ARBITRABLE PURSUANT TO THE COLLECTIVE BARGANING AGREEMENT, NOT A JOB SECURITY ISSUE (WHICH IS NOT ARBITRABLE) (THIRD DEPT).
EVIDENCE OF AN UNRELATED DRUG SALE WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE TO SHOW DEFENDANT’S MOTIVE, CONVICTION REVERSED.
Failure to Call One of the Parties Who Signed a Drug-Analysis Report Did Not Violate the Confrontation Clause/No Evidence the Party Conducted Any Testing or Analysis
PLAINTIFFS’ ACTION STEMMING FROM PFOA CONTAMINATION PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT; THE DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION DID NOT APPLY; QUESTIONS OF FACT RAISED ABOUT THE DUTY OF CARE, PROXIMATE CAUSE, PRIVATE NUISANCE, TRESPASS AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES (THIRD DEPT).
THE COURT DID NOT AUTHORIZE THE SECOND SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT PROCURED BY THE PEOPLE AFTER A MISTRIAL, THE SECOND SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT WAS A NULLITY, CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).
ALTHOUGH DEEMED HARMLESS, IT WAS ERROR TO HAVE THE DEFENDANT SHACKLED DURING A PORTION OF THE TRIAL (THIRD 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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

ALTHOUGH VOLUNTARY PAYMENTS ON A DEFAULT JUDGMENT MAY WAIVE THE PERSONAL JURISDICTION... THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT INCORPORATED BUT NOT MERGED IN THE JUDGMENT OF...