You are here: / Administrative Law
,

PETITIONER’S PISTOL PERMIT WAS NOT REVOKED FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE; THEREFORE THE FACT THAT THE PERMIT HAD BEEN REVOKED IN THE PAST, STANDING ALONE, WAS NOT “GOOD CAUSE” FOR DENIAL OF THE INSTANT PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT OF THE PERMIT; MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined petitioner’s application for reinstatement of his pistol permit should not have been denied simply on the ground it had been revoked before. The matter was remitted:

… [P]etitioner’s application was erroneously denied on the sole ground that his pistol permit had previously been revoked. Although “[a] pistol licensing officer has broad discretion in ruling on permit applications,” denials must be based upon “good cause” … . Penal Law § 400.00 (1) (k) prohibits the issuance of a pistol permit to an individual “who has . . . had a license revoked or who is . . . under a suspension or ineligibility order issued pursuant to the provisions of [CPL 530.14] or [Family Ct Act § 842-a].” This Penal Law statute, however, “was intended to protect victims of domestic violence from individuals who have orders of protection issued against them” and, thus, necessarily bars issuance only where the prior pistol permit was revoked pursuant to one of the cited statutes … .

Here, petitioner’s prior permit was not revoked pursuant to either CPL 530.14 or Family Ct Act § 842-a, but instead upon proof that petitioner made a certain threatening remark and failed to comply with an order directing him to turn in all of his firearms. “Although the revocation of petitioner’s pistol permit and the reasons therefor unquestionably could have some bearing on whether there is good cause to deny his current application,” the prior revocation, alone, was not an adequate basis for the denial (id. at 1114 [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). As the determination set forth no other ground for denying the permit, it was not based on “good cause” and must be annulled as arbitrary and capricious … . Matter of Gaul v Sober, 2020 NY Slip Op 05013, Third Dept 9-17-20

 

/0 Comments/by
, ,

THE STATE DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS (SDHR) ADMITTED IT HAD FAILED TO ADEQUATELY INVESTIGATE PETITIONER’S GENDER DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS; REVERSING SUPREME COURT, SDHR’S “NO PROBABLE CAUSE” FINDING WAS ANNULLED AND THE MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the State Division of Human Rights (SDHR) had acted irrationally, arbitrarily and capriciously in finding there was no probable cause to believe petitioner’s gender-discrimination claims:

In its answer, SDHR specifically requested that Supreme Court remand this case so that SDHR could conduct further investigation pursuant to 9 NYCRR 465.20 (a) (2), conceding that it “may have overlooked or not given full consideration” to the issues raised by petitioner. SDHR acknowledged that the final investigation and report … erroneously included information from a wholly unrelated case before it … and conceded that the witnesses identified by petitioner “were not interviewed [by SDHR] during the investigative process.”… Given SDHR’s admissions, Supreme Court was presented with sufficient good cause demonstrating that SDHR’s underlying investigation in this matter was inadequate and/or abbreviated (see 9 NYCRR 465.20 [a] [2]). Accordingly, we find that SDHR’s probable cause determination based thereon should be annulled as irrational, arbitrary and capricious, and this matter remitted to SDHR for further investigation “so that there can be a proper determination as to whether probable cause exists” … . Matter of Schwindt v Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 05009, Third Dept 9-17-20

 

/0 Comments/by
, , , ,

THE TOWN’S APPROVAL OF CHANGES TO A WIND-TURBINE PROJECT WITHOUT A SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (SEIS) WAS NOT ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, dismissing the petition seeking review of the town’s approval of a wind turbine project. determined a second supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) was not necessary before approving an increase in the height of the turbines and the placement of the transmission lines underground. The Fourth Department noted that Supreme Court’s failure to address issues raised in the petition constitutes a denial of the related relief, and the petitioners did not cross-appeal those denials:

During the SEQRA [State Environmental Quality Review Act] process, a SEIS may be required to address “specific significant adverse environmental impacts not addressed or inadequately addressed in the EIS,” arising from, inter alia, changes in the project … . A decision to require a SEIS “must be based upon . . . the importance and relevance of the information; and . . . the present state of the information in the EIS” … . “A lead agency’s determination whether to require a SEIS—or in this case a second SEIS—is discretionary” … , and such determination “should be annulled only if it is arbitrary, capricious, or unsupported by the evidence” … .

We conclude that the Town Board “took a hard look at the areas of environmental concern and made a reasoned elaboration of the basis for its conclusion that a second SEIS was not necessary” … . The Town Board’s discretionary determination was not arbitrary, capricious, or unsupported by the evidence … . The prior submissions concerning the impact of the project on bald eagles, combined with the updated materials submitted with the latest project modification, were sufficient to establish that the proposed changes would not adversely impact bald eagles. The materials established that collisions between raptors and wind turbines are rare, and that even the higher, 599-foot turbines lie below the normal flight altitude of bald eagles. With respect to the buried electrical transmission lines, the materials showed that such a modification would have a significant positive environmental impact, reducing the effect of the project on wetlands. Matter of McGraw v Town Bd. of Town of Villenova, 2020 NY Slip Op 04644, Fourth Dept 8-20-20

 

/by
, ,

DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION PRECLUDED THIS CIVIL SUIT AGAINST OFFICERS OF THE UTILITY AFTER THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION DETERMINED PLAINTIFF’S ELECTRICITY HAD BEEN PROPERLY CUT OFF BY THE UTILITY BECAUSE PLAINTIFF HAD REPLACED THE METER (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the doctrine of primary jurisdiction precluded plaintiff’s lawsuit against former officers of the Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation. Plaintiff believed the digital encoder receiver transmitter (ERT) installed at his home by the utility to replace an analog meter emitted cancer-causing radiation. Plaintiff removed the ERT and replaced it with an analog meter. The utility considered the meter dangerous and cut off plaintiff’s electricity. Plaintiff complained to the Public Service Commission (PSC) which supported the utilities’ power cut-off and informed plaintiff of his appeal rights. Plaintiff did not appeal and started the instant civil suit:

… [W]e find that Supreme Court was correct in its interpretation of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. Under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, a court has the discretion to refrain from exercising jurisdiction over a matter where an administrative agency also has jurisdiction, and the determination of the issues involved, under a regulatory scheme, depends upon the specialized knowledge and experience of the agency … . Here, the issues concern the particular meter used by Central Hudson, plaintiff’s removal and replacement of same, the safety concerns caused by his actions and the validity of the disconnection of his service. These matters fall under the doctrine and, thus, were appropriate for PSC determination. We also agree with Supreme Court’s assessment that the causes of action found in plaintiff’s complaint amount to little more than a rebranding of his PSC claim and were properly dismissed … .

… [W]e agree with Supreme Court’s determination that review of a PSC ruling is limited to a CPLR article 78 proceeding. “Supreme Court, in determining the motion for [summary judgment,] properly considered whether the . . . primary jurisdiction doctrine[] precluded the causes of action propounded by plaintiff[]” … , and that, in order to review the original ruling, it was incumbent upon plaintiff to bring an article 78 proceeding … . [Romine] v Laurito, 2020 NY Slip Op 04432, Third Dept 8-6-20

 

/by
,

REVOCATION OF PETITIONER’S DRIVER’S LICENSE, BASED UPON A 1995 DEFAULT CONVICTION OF WHICH PETITIONER WAS APPARENTLY UNAWARE, WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Manzanet-Daniels, determined the revocation of defendant’s driver’s license based upon a 24-year-old default conviction, which involved an error made by the Department of Motor Vehicles in 1994 (misspelling petitioner’s name), was arbitrary and capricious:

Petitioner was issued four summonses in October of 1994 for driving violations including driving without insurance. When entering the violations into the DMV database, a DMV employee entered petitioner’s surname as “Sanders,” rather than “Sonders,” which DMV acknowledges was a “possible data-entry error.” Petitioner claims to the best of his knowledge and memory never to have been issued the summonses in question. A default judgment was entered against petitioner as a result of his failure to contest the tickets. The conviction for driving without insurance carried a mandatory penalty of a one-year license revocation (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 318[3][a]-[b]). On or about August 6, 2019, petitioner renewed his New York State driver’s license in person at the DMV. At that time, he obtained a copy of his driving record abstract, which indicated that his license status was “valid.”

Thereafter, petitioner received suspension notices, dated August 7, 2019, stating that his license had been suspended on February 3, 1995; and a revocation order dated August 7, 2019 stating that owing to the February 3, 1995 conviction his license would be revoked for one year in accordance with section 318 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law. Petitioner claims that this is the first notice he received of the summonses.

Petitioner paid the outstanding fines and in September 2019 commenced an article 78 proceeding challenging the license revocation. Supreme Court denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding. This appeal followed. …

“A license to operate an automobile is of tremendous value to the individual and may not be taken away except by due process.”

No such due process was afforded to petitioner, who never received notice of the conviction and was led to believe for over 20 years that his license was in order.  Matter of Sonders v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs. Traffic Violations Bur., 2020 NY Slip Op 04443, First Dept 8-6-20

 

/by
, ,

ALTHOUGH THE TENANT HAD VIOLATED CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE LEASE, THE EVICTION PENALTY SHOCKED THE CONSCIENCE AS A MATTER OF LAW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined the housing authority’s (THA’s) eviction of petitioner was too severe a penalty for her alleged sporadic failure to make timely rent payments, her alleged failure to allow an exterminator to enter the apartment, and her single allegedly “rude and loud” phone conversation with a THA employee. The dissenter argued eviction was an appropriate penalty:

Here, although the petitioner made late rental payments during the subject period, she did eventually pay all of the rent due, as well as the fees that had accrued on the account. Moreover, the record establishes that during the subject period, the amount of the petitioner’s rent fluctuated monthly, with little advance notice, such that her December 2015 rent was nearly three times as much as her September 2015 rent. …

… [T]he two isolated incidents concerning the exterminator and the offensive telephone conversation were not proportionate to the penalty of eviction. First, although the petitioner denied the exterminator entry to her apartment on March 14, 2016, the THA’s evidence otherwise established that the petitioner was the one who had requested treatment for bedbugs, she fully complied with the first treatment, and over several years of biweekly extermination for other pests, she had never denied the exterminator entry … . …

… [T]he petitioner’s single threat of violence occurred in a heated telephone conversation, immediately before the petitioner hung up in frustration and anger. The THA employee to whom the comment was directed testified at the hearing that she found the comment “[e]xtraordinary and extremely rude,” but she did not testify that she was frightened or that she understood the comment to be a genuine threat of violence. …

The penalty imposed is so grave in its impact on the petitioner that it is disproportionate to the misconduct, or the risk of harm to the THA or the public. Under the circumstances of this case, the penalty of termination of the petitioner’s tenancy is so disproportionate to the offenses committed as to be shocking to the judicial conscience as a matter of law … . Matter of Jacobs v Tuckahoe Hous. Auth., 2020 NY Slip Op 04392, Second Dept 8-5-20

 

/by
, ,

THE FINDING THAT PETITIONER VIOLATED VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 1180 (d) (SPEEDING) WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE; THE POLICE OFFICER DESCRIBED AN INCIDENT ON A DIFFERENT DATE AT THE HEARING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the administrative finding that petitioner violated Vehicle and Traffic Law section 1180 (d) (speeding) was not supported by substantial evidence because the police officer described an incident on a different date at the hearing:

At the hearing, the police officer, who issued the summons to the petitioner, testified about events which occurred on March 18, 2016, which was not the date that the alleged offense occurred according to the summons issued to the petitioner. While the substantial evidence standard “demands only that a given inference is reasonable and plausible, not necessarily the most probable'” … , here, there was no testimony or evidence provided to demonstrate that the petitioner operated his vehicle in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180(d) on March 8, 2016. Given the discrepancy between the date of the offense as set forth in the summons and the testimony of the officer, relying on his notes which also referred to March 18, 2016, the record does not demonstrate that the ALJ was presented with substantial evidence that the petitioner violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180(d) on March 8, 2016 … . Matter of Batra v Egan, 2020 NY Slip Op 04300, Second Dept 7-29-20

 

/by
, ,

AN ARTICLE 78 REVIEW OF THE RESPONSE TO A FOIL REQUEST MAY ONLY CONSIDER THE GROUND FOR THE INITIAL AGENCY DECISION; THE GROUNDS FOR A SUBSEQUENT DECISION ISSUED AFTER THE ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING WAS COMMENCED SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED; PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR THE METADATA OF THE DISCLOSED DOCUMENTS MUST BE DENIED BECAUSE METADATA WAS NOT ‘REASONABLY DESCRIBED’ IN THE FOIL REQUEST (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Article 78 review must be confined to the ground asserted in the agency’s initial FOIL decision and could not consider the grounds asserted in the agency’s subsequent decision issued after petitioner brought the Article 78 proceeding. The ground for the initial decision had been abandoned in the second decision. The court noted that the petitioner’s demand for the metadata of the disclosed documents must be denied because metadata was not “reasonably described” in the FOIL request:

This proceeding is not in the nature of mandamus to compel. Instead, the standard of review is whether the denial of the FOIL request was “affected by an error of law” (CPLR 7803[3] … ), for which judicial review is “limited to the grounds invoked by the agency” in its determination … . Since respondents abandoned the exemption raised in their initial decision, they cannot meet their burden to “establish[] that the . . . documents qualif[y] for the exemption” … . Further, as respondents “did not make any contemporaneous claim that the requested materials” fit the newly raised exemptions, “to allow [them] to do so now would be contrary to [Court of Appeals] precedent, as well as to the spirit and purpose of FOIL” … . …

An agency is only required to produce “a record reasonably described” (Public Officers Law § 89[3][a]). Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the FOIL request for “complete copies” of communications and documents cannot fairly be read to have implicitly requested metadata associated with those copies. Matter of Barry v O’Neill, 2020 NY Slip Op 04007, First Dept 7-16-20

 

/by

THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE AND THE HEARING COMMITTEE HAD THE DISCRETION TO ACCEPT A LATE ANSWER FROM PETITIONER-PHYSICIAN WHO WAS FACING REVOCATION OF HER MEDICAL LICENSE; THE REJECTION OF THE ANSWER ON THE GROUND THE ALJ AND HEARING COMMITTEE DID NOT HAVE THE DISCRETION TO ACCEPT IT AS A MATTER OF LAW WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ’s) and the Bureau of Professional Medical Conduct (BPMC) Hearing Committee’s rejection of the petitioner-physician’s attempt to file a late answer to the charges was arbitrary and capricious. The ALJ and the Hearing Committee determined they did not have discretion, as a matter of law, under Public Health Law section 230 to accept the late answer. The Third Department held the ALJ and the Hearing Committee could have exercised discretion and accepted the answer:

… [T]he ALJ and the Hearing Committee concluded that they were precluded, as a matter of law, from accepting petitioner’s answer. We do not read the statute as imposing such a bar. Under the circumstances presented, we conclude that the ALJ and the Hearing Committee had the discretion to decide whether to accept the answer. The statutory language mandating the timely filing of an answer was added to Public Health Law § 230 (10) (c) (2) in 1996 … . Prior to the amendment, the filing of an answer was discretionary. The legislative history indicates that the amendment’s purpose in mandating the filing of an answer was to “expedite proceedings by focusing the proceedings on matters in dispute” … . Allowing a licensee to submit an answer prior to the first hearing date does not compromise this statutory objective. Notably, in Matter of Tribeca Med., P.C. v New York State Dept. of Health (83 AD3d 1135 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 707 [2011]), this Court determined that the ARB [Administrative Review Board for Professional Medical Conduct] possessed the discretionary authority to relieve a licensee of a default in answering charges of professional conduct … . It follows that the ALJ and the Hearing Committee had the discretionary authority to accept an answer filed after the 10-day deadline, but before the hearing. The flaw here is that the ALJ and the Hearing Committee failed to exercise any discretion in rejecting the answer, simply concluding that they lacked the legal authority to do so. Moreover, the ARB incorrectly declined to even address the issue as a procedural matter for the ALJ to resolve. These errors of law render the ARB’s determination arbitrary and capricious. Matter of Offor v Zucker, 2020 NY Slip Op 03835, Third Dept 7-9-20

 

/by
, , ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER FORFEITURE OF DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE WOULD BE A CONSTITUTIONALLY IMPERMISSIBLE EXCESSIVE FINE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether forfeiture of defendant’s vehicle would impose an excessive hardship and would constitute an constitutionally impermissible excessive fine. Defendant pled guilty to possession of a weapon which was found in his vehicle:

Plaintiff established by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant, the registered and titled owner of the vehicle, who pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a firearm, used the vehicle as a means of committing the crime of criminal possession of a firearm … .

In opposition, defendant, acting pro se, submitted an affidavit and supporting evidence in support of his argument that forfeiture of the vehicle, which he needed for getting to work with his tools and picking up his children from school, would impose an excessive and tremendous hardship on him and his family, particularly given that this is his sole criminal offense, and in light of other mitigating facts. This evidence is sufficient to raise an issue of fact as to whether, under all the factual circumstances, civil forfeiture of the vehicle would be grossly disproportionate to the offense and therefore a constitutionally impermissible excessive fine … . Property Clerk, N.Y. City Police Dept. v Nurse, 2020 NY Slip Op 03866, First Dept 7-9-20

 

/by

Categories

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

Copyright © 2020 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy