You are here: / Administrative Law
,

THE OFFICE OF RENEWABLE ENERGY SITING (ORES) CONDUCTED A PROPER REVIEW BEFORE ISSUING THE CHALLENGED REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE SITING OF MAJOR RENEWABLE ENERGY FACILITIES (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Pritzker, determined that the Office of Renewable Energy Siting (ORES) had conducted a proper review before issuing regulations concerning the siting of major renewable energy facilities. The opinion is far too detailed to fairly summarize here:

… [P]etitioners — who include numerous municipalities, municipal corporations and private entities — commenced the instant combined proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 and action for declaratory judgment, seeking, among other things, to annul the regulations and direct ORES to engage in a proper SEQRA [State Environmental Quality Review Act] review. Specifically, petitioners alleged that, among other things, ORES: (1) mischaracterized the action as an unlisted action rather than a type I action; (2) failed to take a hard look at the environmental consequences of the regulations; (3) violated the home rule provision of the NY Constitution; and (4) violated the express terms of Executive Law § 94-c. * * *

… [W]e agree with petitioners’ threshold argument that ORES misclassified this action as unlisted, rather than type I. … … [T]he promulgation of the regulations should have been classified as a type I action that would carry the presumption of requiring preparation of an EIS [Environment Impact Statement] … . However, “a misclassification does not always lead to the annulment of the negative declaration if the lead agency conducts the equivalent of a type I review notwithstanding the misclassification” … , and, notably, “a type I action does not, per se, necessitate the filing of an EIS” … . * * *

A review of the vast record reveals that ORES took a thorough and hard look at the potential negative environmental impacts associated with the proposed regulations. Matter of Town of Copake v New York State Off. of Renewable Energy Siting, 2023 NY Slip Op 02721, Third Dept 5-18-23

Practice Point: The newly created Office of Renewable Energy Siting conducted a proper review before issuing the challenged regulations concerning the siting of major renewable energy facilities.

 

, ,

THE NYC BOARD OF HEALTH PROPERLY REFUSED TO ADD GENEALOGISTS TO THE LIST OF PERSONS WHO CAN ACCESS DEATH CERTIFICATES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the NYC Board of Health did not exceed the scope of its powers when it amended the NYC Health Code to add family members to the list of persons who can access death certificates but refused to add genealogists:

… New York City Board of Health did not “exceed[] the scope of its delegated powers” in amending 24 RCNY 207.11 … , by adding to the existing list of family members for whom requests for death certificates would automatically be deemed “necessary or required for a proper purpose” while declining to add genealogists … . Instead, it “balance[ed] costs and benefits according to preexisting guidelines” and did not create “its own comprehensive set of rules without benefit of legislative guidance” … .  …

The stated goal of the proposal was to allow more family members access to death certificates, and the Board of Health reasonably expressed concern with family privacy issues, due to social security numbers and causes of death being listed on death certificates, when declining to add genealogists to the expanded list … .  Matter of Reclaim the Records v New York City Dept. of Health & Mental Hygiene, 2023 NY Slip Op 02395, First Dept 5-4-23

Practice Point: The NYC Board of Health did not exceed its administrative powers when it refused to add genealogists to the list of persons who can access death certificates.

 

,

THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH REGULATIONS PLACING A CAP ON THE NUMBER OF SERIOUSLY MENTALLY ILL PERSONS WHO CAN BE PLACED IN LARGE (AT LEAST 80-BED) ADULT HOMES DOES NOT CONSTITUTE DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Lynch, reversing Supreme Court, determined the cap on the number of seriously mentally ill persons who can be placed in large adult homes (at least an 80-bed capacity) did not amount to unconstitutional discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA):

On this record, we conclude that respondent has demonstrated that the admissions cap was implemented to benefit, rather than to discriminate against, persons with serious mental illness … .

… [R]espondent [Commissioner of Health] has demonstrated that the challenged regulations are narrowly tailored to implement the integration mandate of Title II of the ADA and that the “benefit to the [protected class from the subject regulations] . . . clearly outweigh[s] whatever burden may result to them” … . The admissions cap applies only to people with a serious mental illness — those “who have a designated diagnosis of mental illness under the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders . . . and whose severity and duration of mental illness results in substantial functional disability” (18 NYCRR 487.2 [c] … ). Accordingly, the cap is specifically tailored to the very individuals who are the subject of the integration mandate. Rather than limiting admissions to all adult homes, the regulations apply solely to a subcategory of large adult homes — those certified with at least an 80-bed capacity — where new admissions would increase the population of persons with serious mental illness over the 25% threshold. Matter of Oceanview Home for Adults, Inc. v Zucker, 2023 NY Slip Op 02365, Third Dept 5-4-23

Practice Point: The cap on the number of seriously mentally ill persons who can be placed in large adult homes does not amount to unconstitutional discrimination against persons with disabilities.

 

,

THE COUNTY’S FAILURE TO RESPOND TO PETITIONER’S FOIL REQUEST WITHIN FIVE DAYS IS A DENIAL; THE COUNTY’S FAILURE TO NOTIFY PETITIONER OF THE AVAILABILITY OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OF THE DENIAL EXCUSED PETITIONER’S FAILURE TO SEEK ADMINSTRATIVE REVIEW; PETITIONER’S ARTICLE 78 ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Article 78 petition seeking court review of the denial of a FOIL request should not have been dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Here the county did not respond to the FOIL request within five days, which, under the controlling regulations, is a denial. Petitioner, after an additional 30 days, filed the Article 78 petition without pursuing an administrative appeal. The Second Department held that the county’s failure to notify petitioner of the availability of administrative review justified petitioner’s failure to seek it before going to court, even though petitioner was aware of the availability of the administrative review process:

“The statutory time to respond to a FOIL request for records is ‘within five business days of the receipt of a written request,’ and the agency should respond by ‘mak[ing] such record available to the person requesting it, deny[ing] such request in writing or furnish[ing] a written acknowledgment of the receipt of such request and a statement of the approximate date . . . when such request will be granted or denied'” … . 21 NYCRR 1401.7(b) states, in relevant part, that “[d]enial of access shall be in writing stating the reason therefor and advising the person denied access of his or her right to appeal to the person or body designated to determine appeals, and that person or body shall be identified by name, title, business address[,] and business telephone number” … . “21 NYCRR 1401.7(c) provides that a FOIL request is deemed denied if there is no response to the request within five business days” … . “[A]ny administrative appeal of a denial [must] be undertaken within 30 days of the denial” … . A petitioner who does not “appeal[ ] the denial in writing” will generally be deemed to have “failed to exhaust its administrative remedies and, thus, [may] not resort to a judicial forum to gain relief” … .

Here, the Supreme Court improperly determined that dismissal was warranted based on the petitioner’s failure to exhaust its administrative remedies. Where, as here, an agency fails to “inform the person [or entity] making the FOIL request that further administrative review of the determination is available, the requirement of exhaustion is excused” … . Matter of Law Offs. of Cory H. Morris v Suffolk County, 2023 NY Slip Op 02312, Second Dept 5-3-23

Practice Point: If the agency which receives a FOIL request does not respond within five days, the request can be deemed denied. If the agency does not notify the party making the request of the availability of administrative review of the denial, failure to seek administrative review is excused, even where, as here, the petitioner was aware of the administrative review process.

 

, , ,

PETITIONER, A CORRECTION OFFICER WHO WAS INJURED MOVING LAUNDRY BAGS BLOCKING A HALLWAY IN THE JAIL, WAS ENTITLED TO GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 207-C BENEFITS; ALTHOUGH SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE TRANSFERRED THE ARTICLE 78 TO THE APPELLATE DIVISION, THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT CONSIDERED THE MERITS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing the denial of General Municipal Law 207-a benefits in this Article 78 proceeding, determined petitioner, a correction officer, was injured performing her duties when she attempted to move laundry bags blocking the hallway in the jail housing unit. The Fourth Department noted that Supreme Court should not have transferred the Article 78 proceeding to the appellate division because the determination was not based upon a hearing at which evidence was taken “pursuant to direction by law:”

… Supreme Court erred in transferring the proceeding to this Court pursuant to CPLR 7804 (g) on the ground that the petition raised a substantial evidence issue. Respondent’s determination “was not ‘made as a result of a hearing held, and at which evidence was taken, pursuant to direction by law’ (CPLR 7803 [4]). Rather, the determination was the result of a hearing conducted pursuant to the terms of [an] agreement” between petitioner’s union and respondent … . Nevertheless, in the interest of judicial economy, we consider the merits of the petition …. …

Petitioner testified at the hearing that she thought the laundry bags outside the main entrance door were a “safety issue,” particularly because they would block other officers from moving through the hallway quickly and because persons using the hallway may get hurt. She further testified that her training and job responsibilities required her to address safety concerns. Petitioner also submitted documentary evidence that correction officers were under the duty to ensure that laundry bags are not placed on the housing unit floor at any time. Moreover, it is undisputed that there was no policy prohibiting correction officers from moving laundry bags. Although respondent submitted testimony that correction officers should order inmates to move laundry bags, that testimony did not address the location of the laundry bags and the safety hazard posed by laundry bags left in a hallway. We therefore conclude that the determination to deny petitioner’s application for section 207-c benefits was arbitrary and capricious … . Matter of Williams v County of Onondaga, 2023 NY Slip Op 02262, Fourth Dept 4-28-23

Practice Point: A correction officer injured moving laundry bags blocking a jail hallway was performing her duties and was entitled to General Municipal Law 207-c benefits.

Practice Point: An Article 78 proceeding should not be transferred to the appellate division unless evidence was taken at a hearing “pursuant to direction by law.” Here the hearing, which was held pursuant to an agreement between the respondent and petitioner’s union, did not meet that criteria.

 

, ,

IN THIS SUIT BY A NEW JERSEY CASINO TO RECOVER DEFENDANT’S GAMBLING DEBT, DEFENDANT RAISED AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES ALLEGING PLAINTIFF CASINO VIOLATED PROVISIONS OF NEW JERSEY’S CASINO CONTROL ACT (CCA); THE CONTROLLING AGENCY, THE CASINO CONTROL COMMISSION (CCC), HAS PRIMARY JURISDICTION OVER THOSE COMPLAINTS; THE COMPLAINTS MUST BE RULED ON BEFORE THE COURT CAN CONSIDER PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION (FIRST DEPT).

​The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Kapnick, determined the plaintiff, a New Jersey casino (Golden Nugget), was not entitled to summary judgment this action seeking to recover defendant’s (Chan’s) $200,000 gambling debt. Defendant had raised affirmative defenses based upon complaints alleging the dice used by the casino violated the Casino Control Act (CCA) which defendant filed with the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement (DGE). The Casino Control Commission has primary jurisdiction over those complaints. Therefore the complaints must be ruled upon before summary judgment can be considered by the court:

Supreme Court’s granting of summary judgment to plaintiff was premature. The motion court should instead have deferred any decision until receipt of DGE’s ruling on Chan’s “patron complaint” based on the same violations, since that grievance was filed prior to the commencement of plaintiff’s litigation and remained pending at the time of its decision. While DGE has ruled that the same scribing violations against another casino do not violate the CCA, there has been no ruling by DGE in any matter concerning defendant’s allegations of “non-transparent dice.” Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment is denied, with leave to renew upon a ruling by DGE on the “patron complaint,” or after six months if DGE has failed to resolve this issue despite sufficient notice to DGE by the parties … . Golden Nugget Atl. City LLC v Chan, 2023 NY Slip Op 02176, First Dept 4-27-23

Practice Point: Here a New Jersey sued defendant to recover a $200,000 gambling debt. Defendant raised violations of New Jersey’s Casino Control Act as affirmative defenses. Because New Jersey’s Casino Control Commission has primary jurisdiction over those complaints, they must be ruled on before the court can consider the casino’s summary judgment motion.

 

, , ,

IN THIS SUIT BY YELLOW CAB MEDALLION OWNERS AGAINST THE NYC TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION, PLAINTIFFS DID NOT STATE A CLAIM FOR BREACH OF AN IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH OR DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES; PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS WERE BASED UPON DEFENDANTS’ ALLEGED FAILURE TO REGULATE COMPETING SERVICES LIKE UBER AND LYFT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals determined the lawsuit against the NYC Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC) and New York City by taxi services which purchased yellow cab medallions at an auction in 2013 failed to state a claim. The plaintiffs argued defendants breached an implied covenant of good faith by failing to regulate competing services like Uber and Lyft and engaged in deceptive business practices under General Business Law 349:

… [T]he covenant cannot be used to “imply obligations inconsistent with other terms of the contractual relationship,” and encompasses only those “promises which a reasonable person in the position of the promisee would be justified in understanding were included” … . * * *

… [P]laintiffs acknowledged in the bid forms that defendants made no representations or warranties “as to the present or future value of a taxicab medallion.” As plaintiffs concede on this appeal, that language is flatly inconsistent with any suggestion that defendants guaranteed the value of their medallions. …

… [P]laintiffs acknowledged in the bid forms that defendants made no representations or warranties “as to the present or future application or provisions of the rules of the [TLC] or applicable law.” The plain language of that disclaimer put plaintiffs on notice that they—not defendants—bore the risk that either TLC’s rules or its “application” thereof might change after the sale of the medallions. * * *

Section 349 prohibits “[d]eceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce or in the furnishing of any service in this state” (General Business Law § 349 [a] …). …. [T]he government’s issuance of a taxicab license is not a consumer-oriented transaction protected by section 349 … . Singh v City of New York, 2023 NY Slip Op 02141, CtApp 4-25-23

Practice Point: Yellow cab medallion holders, when the purchased the medallions at auction, agreed the bid included disclaimers stating the future value of the medallions was not guaranteed. Therefore the breach-of-a-covenant-of-good-faith cause of action failed. In addition, the deceptive business practices (General Business Law 349) cause of action the purchase of yellow cab medallions is not a consumer-oriented transaction subject to the statute.

 

,

PETITIONER OPERATED HIS BARBER SHOP OUT OF HIS HOME IN MARCH 2020 AFTER THE GOVERNOR ORDERED BARBER SHOPS CLOSED DUE TO COVID-19; REVOCATION OF PETITIONER’S BARBER LICENSES WAS DEEMED TOO SEVERE A PENALTY; THERE WAS A DISSENT (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, over a dissent, determined the revocation of petitioner’s barber operator license and barber shop license was too severe a penalty for violating the state’s COVID-19 policy in early 2020. After the governor ordered barber shops closed due to COVID, petitioner opened his barber shop in his home in March 2020. He closed his home operation in May 2020 when he was hospitalized with COVID:

The Secretary is empowered to impose a range of penalties for a barber’s misconduct, with a reprimand being the least severe, then a fine of up to $500, then license suspension and, most seriously, license revocation (see General Business Law §§ 441 [a]; 443). As noted above, petitioner has been a licensed barber since 1963 and, before the proceedings at issue here, had a clean disciplinary record for nearly six decades. The ALJ found that petitioner “sincerely believed” that he was entitled to reopen his shop in March 2020 and was remorseful for having done so, as well as that he did not knowingly work while suffering from COVID-19. Further, although petitioner failed to operate in accordance with COVID-19 guidelines after he was permitted to reopen, it appears that such resulted from his lack of familiarity with the particulars of the guidelines, and it must be noted that those guidelines and other COVID-19 restrictions had been lifted by the time of the Secretary’s determination … . It is accordingly unclear how petitioner’s conduct during the COVID-19 emergency would pose an ongoing threat to the public that would warrant the maximum sanction of permanently barring him from performing the work he had otherwise done without incident for almost 60 years. “Under these circumstances, and considering petitioner’s otherwise unblemished record, revocation was too severe a penalty,” and we therefore “remit to [the Secretary] to impose a less severe penalty” … . Matter of Lalima v New York State Dept. of State, 2023 NY Slip Op 01121, Third Dept 3-2-23

Practice Point: Here revocation of petitioner’s barber licenses was deemed too severe a penalty. After the governor ordered barber shops closed in March 2020 due to COVID, petitioner continued cutting hair in his home.

 

, , , , ,

THE CHALLENGES TO THE PROCEDURES FOR RELIGIOUS AND MEDICAL EXEMPTIONS FROM THE COVID-19 VACCINE MANDATE FOR NYC TEACHERS, AS WELL AS “LEAVE WITHOUT PAY” FOR THOSE WHO DID NO APPLY FOR AN EXEMPTION, WERE PROPERLY REJECTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, over a dissent, determined the COVID-19 vaccine mandates imposed by the arbitrator for NYC Department of Education (DOE) employees properly survived the hybrid Article 75/78 challenge. The arbitration initiated by the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) resulted in the September 10, 2021 Impact Award which established procedures for religious and medical exemptions:

The article 75 claims were properly dismissed, as petitioners lack standing to challenge the Impact Award and failed to join UFT as a necessary party. The article 75 claims also fail on the merits. As to the article 78 claims, petitioners are unable to show that DOE made an error of law or acted irrationally. * * *

Petitioners are similarly situated teachers employed by DOE. All received notification by email that they were being placed on Leave Without Pay (LWOP) status because they were not in compliance with DOE’s COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate. They were informed that they could not report to their school sites as of Monday, October 4, and that, in order to return to work, they were required to upload proof of having received the first vaccine shot and “E-sign the attestation stating that you are willing to return to your worksite within seven calendar days of submission.” The notifications also summarized the options for separation and leave extensions. Petitioners, with the exception of Loiacono, did not submit proof of vaccination or request religious or medical exemptions. * * *

When a union represents employees during arbitration, only that union — not individual employees — may seek to vacate the resulting award … .

Petitioners also failed to join UFT as a party. UFT advocated successfully for the exemptions, accommodations, and extended benefits for teachers otherwise unwilling to be vaccinated, all of which were prescribed in the Impact Award. Accordingly, UFT would be adversely impacted by a judgment favorable to petitioners and is thus a necessary party (CPLR 1001[a] …). Matter of O’Reilly v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y., 2023 NY Slip Op 00957, First Dept 2-21-23

Practice Point: The individual NYC Department of Education (DOE) employees did not have standing to challenge the results of the COVID-19 vaccine-mandate arbitration initiated by the United Federation of Teachers (UFT). The UFT was a necessary party to the challenge but was not made a party. The DOE did not act arbitrarily or capriciously. Essentially the procedures for religious and medical exemptions to the vaccine mandate were upheld. Teachers who did not apply for an exemption and were not vaccinated were deemed properly placed on leave without pay (LWOP).

 

, , ,

A BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION IS NOT PROPERLY CONVERTED TO AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING; HERE THE PHYSICIAN SUED THE HOSPITAL FOR FAILING TO HONOR A CONTRACTUAL COMMITMENT TO ADMIT PLAINTIFF TO A RESIDENCY PROGRAM; THE PHYSICIAN’S ACTION WAS PRECLUDED FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST THE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES UNDER THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the breach of contract action should not have been converted to an Article 78 and the action was precluded by plaintiff-physician’s failure to exhaust the administrative remedies under the Public Health Law. Plaintiff was matched to a residency program at defendant hospital and the hospital was contractually bound to offer the residency to the plaintiff. The hospital sought a waiver which was denied, and the hospital still refused to offer the residency to plaintiff. Plaintiff sued for breach of contract and requested a preliminary injunction. Supreme Court improperly converted the action to an Article 78 (mandamus) proceeding and granted the preliminary injunction. The appellate division held a breach of contract action cannot be converted to an Article 78:

Invoking CPLR 103(c), the Supreme Court erroneously converted the subject branch of the plaintiff’s motion and this action into a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. Under CPLR 103(c), courts are empowered to convert a civil judicial proceeding that was brought in the improper form to the proper form and convert a motion into a special proceeding. Here, the court erred in concluding that a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 was the proper form. “[A] CPLR article 78 proceeding is not the proper vehicle to resolve contractual rights” … . “Indeed, it is well settled that mandamus relief lies only to compel the performance of purely ministerial acts, and may not be used when there are other available remedies at law, such as a breach of contract action” … . * * *

Supreme Court should not have rejected the hospital’s argument that the branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for preliminary injunctive relief against it should be denied because the plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies under Public Health Law article 28. Public Health Law § 2801-b(1) makes it an “improper practice” for a hospital to deny, withhold, or terminate professional privileges for a reason unrelated to “patient care, patient welfare, the objectives of the institution or the character or competency of the applicant.” “To enforce the statutory prohibition against improper practices, the Legislature created a two-step grievance process by which a physician may obtain injunctive relief requiring the hospital to restore wrongfully terminated staff privileges” … . “First, the physician must submit a complaint to the [public health and health planning council (hereinafter PHHPC)]” … . “It is the duty of the [PHHPC] to undertake a prompt investigation of the action complained of and to allow the parties to the dispute to submit, in a strictly confidential setting, any relevant information in support of their respective positions” … . “After investigating the physician’s complaint, the [PHHPC] will either direct the hospital to reconsider its decision or inform the parties of its determination that the complaint lacks merit” … . Khass v New York Presbyt. Brooklyn Methodist Hosp., 2023 NY Slip Op 00851, Second Dept 2-15-23

Practice Point: A breach of contract action is not properly converted to an Article 78 proceeding pursuant to CPLR 103(c).

Practice Point: A hospital’s failure to honor its contractual commitment to admit plaintiff physician to a residency program is subject to administrative remedies under the Public Health Law which must be exhausted before bringing suit.

 

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