You are here: / Administrative Law
,

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF FEES FOR CIVIL SERVICE EXAMS IS NOT A CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT SUBJECT TO NEGOTIATION UNDER THE TAYLOR LAW (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Singas, reversing the appellate division and the NYS Public Employees Relations Board (PERB), determined the implementation of application fees for promotional and transitional civil service exams.by the Department of Civil Service (DCS) was not a condition of employment subject to negotiation under the Taylor Law:

Civil Service Law § 50 (5) vests DCS with power to impose fees to recoup the administrative costs of conducting civil service exams, not with authority to alter the employer-employee relationship through the imposition of the fees. The fees for promotional and transitional exams at issue here are akin to fees imposed by an agency with plenary authority to set fees for licenses that an employer may demand as a job requirement, such as a driver’s license or professional license. As with those fees, DCS’s statutory authority to impose the at-issue application fees is unrelated to the employment itself. The fees have no connection to job qualifications, criteria for employment, or job-related duties and obligations. The imposition of the subject fees is therefore not encompassed within the definition of terms and conditions of employment under Civil Service Law § 201 (4). Nor did the waiver of the fees for State employees render them terms or conditions of employment.

Because the imposition of the fees was not a term and condition of employment, the State had no obligation to negotiate with respect to their implementation. PERB’s conclusion to the contrary was error. Matter of State of New York v New York State Pub. Empl. Relations Bd., 2023 NY Slip Op 00805, CtApp 2-14-23

​Practice Point: Fees for civil service promotional and transitional civil services exams are not a condition of employment subject to negotiation under the Taylor Law.

, , ,

PETITIONER, A FORMER CORRECTION OFFICER SEEKING REINSTATEMENT, WAS ENTITLED TO THE RECORDS OF THE PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMINATION WHICH FOUND HIM UNFIT; THE WAIVER OF THE RIGHT TO REVIEW THOSE DOCUMENTS, SIGNED BY PETITIONER, WAS A NULLITY (THIRD DEPT).

​The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Pritzker, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner, a former correction officer seeking reinstatement, was entitled to discovery of the records of the psychological examination which found him unfit to serve as a correction officer. The court held that the waiver of the right to review such documents (signed by the petitioner at the outset) was a nullity:

… [W]e do not agree that the limited review procedures established in Correction Law § 8 can lawfully be used to side-step and effectively eviscerate the robust protections set forth in 4 NYCRR 5.9 (e) (3), which directly apply to those seeking reinstatement under Civil Service Law § 71 … . Nevertheless, although both statutes have different purposes — Correction Law § 8 is designed to eliminate applicants “who exhibit psychological disorders that would indicate their unsuitability for the job” … , whereas Civil Service Law § 71 was enacted for the “protection of an employee separated from the service by reason of a disability resulting from occupational injury or disease” … — both purposes can be achieved, and the statutes harmonized by permitting the use of Correction Law § 8 testing while preserving the review procedure set forth in 4 NYCRR 5.9 relative to employees falling within Civil Service Law § 71 … . Notably, despite the use of Correction Law § 8 testing, this matter remains distinctly a Civil Service Law § 71 reinstatement case.

… [P]etitioner is minimally entitled to receive the clandestine psychological report that formed the very basis for the disqualification for reinstatement, as well as all other rights attendant to a hearing held pursuant to article 3 of the State Administrative Procedure Act. … [T]o the extent that petitioner signed a waiver purporting to extinguish these rights, the waiver is a nullity inasmuch as respondent’s policy requiring all applicants to sign the consent and release form is an unpromulgated rule under the definition of “[r]ule” within State Administrative Procedure Act § 102 (2) (a) (i), and therefore is without effect … . Matter of Williams v New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision, 2022 NY Slip Op 07280, Third Dept 12-22-22

Practice Point: Petitioner, a former correction officer seeking reinstatement, was entitled to the records of the psychological exam which found him unfit. The waiver of the right to review the documents, signed by petitioner at the outset, was based upon an unpromulgated rule and therefore was of no effect.

 

, , ,

RESPONDENT STATE COLLEGE WITHHELD EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE IN THIS COLLEGE MISCONDUCT PROCEEDING WHICH RESULTED IN PETITIONER-STUDENT’S EXPULSION; THE EXPULSION PENALTY WAS VACATED AND THE STUDENT WAS REINSTATED IN GOOD STANDING (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing the expulsion of petitioner-student and reinstating the student in good standing, determined the respondent state college had withheld exculpatory evidence which indicated petitioner did not carve a racial epithet on an elevator door. Two students claimed to have seen petitioner carve the epithet. Another student sent an email stating he had seen the epithet on the door before the students arrived for the semester. That email was never disclosed to the petitioner:

Article III of Section 4 of respondent’s Code of Conduct enumerates the due process rights of students charged with violations. In addition to the right to a fair hearing, a charged student “has the right to copies of written reports pertinent to the case . . .” Respondent’s failure to turn over exculpatory evidence in its possession prior to the hearing violated its own policies and procedures, thereby violating petitioner’s due process rights … . Now, in hindsight, it cannot be said that petitioner received a fair hearing where evidence tending to prove his innocence was withheld.

Accordingly, after our independent review of the record as a whole, we now find that this exculpatory evidence, the extensive alibi evidence as well as other objective evidence of petitioner’s innocence render the charges unsupportable as a matter of law thus warranting vacatur of the expulsion penalty, expungement of all references to the underlying charges contained in petitioner’s academic record and his reinstatement as a student in good standing … . Matter of Mozdziak v State Univ. of N.Y. Mar. Coll., 2022 NY Slip Op 06759, First Dept 11-29-22

Practice Point: In this misconduct proceeding in a state college, the student was entitled to due process. The college’s failure to turn over exculpatory evidence required vacation of the expulsion penalty and reinstatement of the student in good standing.

 

, , ,

PETITIONER NYC FIREFIGHTER WAS DENIED ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT (ADR) BENEFITS WITHOUT ANY EXPLANATION IN THE MEDICAL BOARD’S FINDINGS; THE MATTER WAS REMITTED FOR A NEW DETERMINATION BASED ON A RECORD ADEQUATE FOR REVIEW (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, annulling the denial of accidental disability retirement (ADR) benefits in this firefighter-disability case, determined that the Medical Board’s failure to explain the reasons for its conclusion there was no accident and the injuries were not debilitating required remittal to the Medical Board and a new determination by the Board of Trustees with a record adequate for review:

… [T]he Medical Board found petitioner to be disabled on account of the left shoulder injuries he sustained on March 22, 2018. However, citing “inconsistencies” and a “lack of witnessed accounts . . . that would suggest . . . an accident,” the Board denied petitioner an ADR benefit. When the insufficient explanation was raised before the Board of Trustees, they acknowledged that a witness statement was not necessary, and stated that they did not understand what the Medical Board was referring to with regard to inconsistencies in the manner of petitioner’s injuries. Nevertheless, when the Board of Trustees reconsidered the matter, it simply took a vote on petitioner’s application without any deliberation or indication as to why he had been denied an ADR benefit, issuing a conclusory denial without any explanation as to why they had adopted the Medical Board’s unsupported statements about alleged inconsistencies concerning the nature of petitioner’s injuries.

The Medical Board failed to provide any factual basis concerning the alleged inconsistencies and why it did not believe petitioner’s injuries to be accidental. Further, the determination of the Medical Board was devoid of any articulated basis for its conclusion that the limitations of petitioner’s cervical and lumbar spine were not a debilitating or incapacitating condition for performing the duties of a firefighter. The failure to set forth an adequate statement of the factual basis for the determination forecloses the possibility of fair judicial review … . Matter of Reynolds v New York City Fire Pension Fund, 2022 NY Slip Op 06330, First Dept 11-10-22

Practice Point: Here the injured NYC firefighter was denied accidental disability retirement (ADR) but the Medical Board did not give any reasons for its conclusion. The findings were annulled and the matter remitted for a new determination and the creation of an adequate record for review.

 

,

DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY TO DWI AND THE JUDGE REVOKED HIS DRIVERS LICENSE FOR ONE YEAR; THE DMV SUBSEQUENTLY DENIED DEFENDANT’S APPLICATION TO REINSTATE HIS LICENSE; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON THE GROUND HE WAS NOT AWARE HE COULD PERMANENTLY LOSE HIS LICENSE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a comprehensive decision worth consulting, determined defendant’s motion to vacate his DWI conviction should not have been granted: Defendant pled guilty and Supreme Court revoked his driving license for one year. When defendant applied to reinstate his drivers license he was notified by the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) that, based on his prior DWI-related convictions or incidents, his application had been denied. Defendant brought a  motion to vacate his conviction, arguing that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary because the plea was based on his understanding he would lose his license for one year. Supreme Court granted the motion and the People appealed:

The Supreme Court erred in granting the defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment of conviction on the ground that his plea of guilty was not entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently. The subject regulation that led to the denial of the defendant’s application for relicensing did not exist at the time he entered his plea of guilty, and it would have been impossible for the court to inform the defendant of consequences flowing therefrom … . “‘The defendant’s grievance lies with the enactment and enforcement of the new regulation, not the manner of his conviction'” … .

To the extent that the potentially permanent license revocation authorized under the subject regulation is a consequence of the defendant’s instant plea of guilty at all (see People v Avital, 64 Misc 3d 483, 485 [Town of East Fishkill Just Ct, Dutchess County] [denial of relicensing under 15 NYCRR 136.5 results not from any particular conviction, but from the applicant’s “complete driving history”]), it is, as the defendant acknowledges, a collateral consequence of his plea … . * * *

… [A] consequence of a conviction must represent an exceptionally severe liberty deprivation [i.e., deportation] in order to fall within the narrow category of collateral consequences of which a defendant must be advised at the time of entering the plea. … [W]e cannot conclude that the permanent loss of a driver license fits into that category. People v Maggio, 2022 NY Slip Op 06262, Second Dept 11-9-22

Practice Point: Defendant pled guilty to DWI knowing his license would be revoked by the court for one year. His application to reinstate his license was subsequently denied by the DMV. The fact that defendant’s license could be revoked permanently by the DMV was a collateral consequence of the plea which did not affect the voluntariness of the plea. A defendant need not be aware of a collateral consequence to render a plea voluntary. The rare exception is a collateral consequence which affects a liberty interest, deportation for example.

 

,

WHETHER A PRIVATE COLLEGE ACTED IRRATIONALLY OR ARBITRARILY AND CAPRICIOUSLY IN ELIMINATING FACULTY POSITIONS IN RESPONSE TO A BUDGET SHORTFALL IS PROPERLY DETERMINED IN AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING; HERE THE COLLEGE FOLLOWED THE RELEVANT RULES IN THE COLLEGE MANUAL; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RULED THE COLLEGE ACTED ARBITRARILY AND CAPRICIOUSLY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the respondent private college followed the relevant provisions of the college manual in determining what programs and faculty positions to eliminate in response to a budget shortfall. Petitioners, members of the music department faculty whose positions were eliminated, did not demonstrate the respondents’ decisions were irrational or arbitrary and capricious:

A private college, “having accepted a charter and having thus become a quasi-governmental body, can be compelled in a[ CPLR] article 78 proceeding to fulfill not only obligations imposed upon them by State or municipal statutes but also those imposed by their internal rules” …  Thus, a CPLR article 78 proceeding is the appropriate vehicle for judicial review of matters involving a determination of a professor’s benefits and privileges of his or her academic tenure … .

As “the administrative decisions of educational institutions involve the exercise of highly specialized professional judgment and these institutions are, for the most part, better suited to make relatively final decisions concerning wholly internal matters” … . Deference should be accorded to a college’s determination, “and judicial review is circumscribed to whether the [college] failed to substantially comply with its internal rules and whether its decision was arbitrary [and] capricious or made in bad faith … . ….

… [T]he record confirms … there were no procedural rule violations. …

… [T]he record confirms that Supreme Court did not give appropriate deference to respondents’ interpretation of the termination preference — as set forth in chapter 2, § E (1) (1.6) of the manual …  — and that Supreme Court improperly concluded that respondents’ determination was arbitrary and capricious.  Matter of Hansbrough v College of St. Rose, 2022 NY Slip Op 05915, Third Dept 10-20-22

Practice Point: A court’s Article 78 review of a private college’s elimination of faculty positions in response to a budget shortfall is limited to a determination whether the college acted irrationally or arbitrarily and capriciously. Here the record indicated the college followed the relevant rules in the college manual, i.e.,  the college acted rationally.

 

, , ,

​ AN AMENDED REGULATION DESIGNED TO PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF LIFE-INSURANCE AND ANNUITY CONSUMERS IS NOT VOID FOR VAGUENESS AND WAS PROPERLY CRAFTED AND ISSUED BY THE NYS DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Singas, reversing the appellate division, determined an amended regulation designed to protect the interests of life-insurance and annuity consumers was not void for vagueness and was properly crafted and issued by the NYS Department of Financial Services (DFS):

The amendment addressed concerns that the purchase of annuities and life insurance had become increasingly complex with more products available to purchase. DFS reasoned that consumers, finding themselves more reliant on professional advice in order to understand the options available and to make purchasing decisions, had become more susceptible to producers and insurers recommending transactions that prioritized their own compensation over the consumer’s best interest … . The amendment … extended the scope of the regulation to cover both annuity and life insurance contracts, and created a new standard applicable when producers and insurers make “recommendations” to consumers. The amended regulation, which applies to both “sales transactions” and “in-force transactions” … , requires that producers, or insurers when no producer is involved, act in the “best interest of the consumer” when making a “recommendation” … .

The producer or insurer must, among other things: make “reasonable efforts” to obtain the consumer’s “suitability information”; base any recommendation “on an evaluation of the relevant suitability information” that “reflects the care, skill, prudence, and diligence that a prudent person acting in a like capacity and familiar with such matters would use under the circumstances then prevailing”; “[o]nly [consider] the interests of the consumer . . . in making the recommendation” and not be influenced by compensation or other incentives; recommend only “suitable” transactions; and have a “reasonable basis” to believe that the consumer has been reasonably informed of the features of the policy, the potential consequences of the transactions, both favorable and unfavorable, and that the consumer would benefit from certain features of the policy and the particular policy as a whole … . Matter of Independent Ins. Agents & Brokers of N.Y., Inc. v New York State Dept. of Fin. Servs., 2022 NY Slip Op 05917, CtApp 10-20-22

Practice Point: An amended regulation designed to protect the interests of life-insurance and annuity consumers is not void for vagueness and was properly created and issued by the NYS Department of Financial Services. The amendment seeks to ensure the advice given to consumers does not place the financial compensation of the insurer ahead of the best interests of the consumer.

 

,

DISNEY WAS DEDUCTING ROYALTY PAYMENTS MADE BY AFFILIATES WHICH DID NOT PAY NEW YORK TAXES; THE TAX LAW WAS DESIGNED TO PLUG THAT “LOOPHOLE” AND THE DEDUCTIONS WERE PROPERLY DISALLOWED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Fisher, determined the Tax Law did not permit petitioner to deduct royalty payments made by affiliates organized under the law of foreign countries pursuant to intellectual-property licensing agreements. The opinion is too detailed and comprehensive to be fairly summarized here: Essentially, the petitioner was deemed to be taking advantage of a “loophole” to avoid paying franchise taxes which had been addressed and closed by the Tax Law:

At the hearing, the Department’s employees testified that petitioner was denied the royalty deduction because the foreign affiliates it had received payments from were not New York taxpayers. The ALJ [Administrative Law Judge] found that “[t]he addback and exclusion provisions contained in Tax Law [§ 208 former] (9) (o) work in tandem to ensure that royalty transactions between related members are taxed only once” and do “not escape taxation altogether.” In determining that petitioner’s interpretation of the statute effectively allowed it to avoid taxation on that income, which went against the Legislature’s intent in enacting the statute, the ALJ concluded that the Department’s interpretation of the statute was rational and therefore petitioner was not permitted to deduct royalty payments from its income. When the Tribunal affirmed the findings of the ALJ, it added that “the [L]egislature did not intend for a taxpayer to gain the benefit of the income exclusion . . . without the corresponding cost to a related member of the add back.”  Matter of Walt Disney Co. & Consol. Subsidiaries v Tax Appeals Trib. of the State of N.Y., 2022 NY Slip Op 05898, Third Dept 10-20-22

Practice Point: Disney was deducting royalty payments made by affiliates which did not pay New York taxes. The Third Department determined the Tax Law did not allow the deductions.

 

, ,

NYC DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION’S (DOE’S) DENIALS OF PETITIONERS’ APPLICATIONS FOR ADMISSION TO THE CITY’S SPECIALIZED HIGH SCHOOLS (SHS’S) WERE NOT ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Clark, determined the NYC Department of Education’s (DOE’s) denials of petitioners’ applications for admission to NYC’s Specialized High Schools (SHS’s) were not arbitrary and capricious. The opinion includes a detailed history of the SHS’s and detailed explanations of the criteria for admission of students deemed to be disadvantaged within meaning of the SHS’s Discovery program. The petitioners were not disadvantaged students. It is difficult to discern the precise nature of the petitioners’ claims from the opinion, but it appears petitioners were questioning the propriety of the implementation of the Discovery program for disadvantaged students. Matter of C.K. v Tahoe, 2022 NY Slip Op 05899, Third Dept 10-20-22

Practice Point: In this Article 78 proceeding the petitioners were students who were denied admission to NYC’s Specialized High Schools (SHS’s), The petitioners, who were not disadvantaged within the meaning the SHS’s Discovery program, apparently questioned the propriety of the implementation of the Discovery program for disadvantaged students. The Third Department held that the Department of Education’s denials of the petitioners’ applications for admission were not arbitrary and capricious.

 

, , , ,

THE TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS’ FAILURE TO ISSUE A DECISION ON PETITIONER’S APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION PERMIT AND AN AREA VARIANCE WITHIN THE 62 DAYS PRESCRIBED BY THE TOWN LAW WAS NOT A DENIAL BY DEFAULT; THEREFORE SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AND THE MATTER WAS NOT RIPE FOR REVIEW; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ANNULLED THE “DEFAULT DENIAL” AND ORDERED THE TOWN TO ISSUE THE PERMIT AND VARIANCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined: (1) the town Board of Appeals’ failure to issue a decision on petitioner’s application for a special exception permit and an area variance within the 62 days prescribed by the Town Law was not a denial of the application by default; (2) Supreme Court should not have treated the failure to issue a timely decision as a denial by default. which it then annulled, ordering the town to issue the permit and the variance; and (3) Supreme Court should not have denied the Board’s motion to vacate Supreme Court’s order and judgment (ordering the issuance of the permit and variance):

Pursuant to Town Law § 267-a(8), the Board must render a decision within 62 days after the close of the hearing. The Town Law also contains a default provision which provides that if the Board, in exercising its appellate jurisdiction, fails to render a decision within 62 days of the hearing, the application is deemed denied (see id. § 267-a[13][b]). …

A proceeding to annul a determination by an administrative body “should not be concluded in the petitioner’s favor merely upon the basis of a failure to answer the petition on the return date thereof, unless it appears that such failure to plead was intentional and that the administrative body has no intention to have the controversy determined on the merits” … . Here, there was no evidence demonstrating a deliberate default by the Board … .

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, its application for a special exception permit was not denied by default. The Board’s failure to comply with the time period prescribed by Town Law § 267-a(8) only results in a denial by default when the Board exercises its appellate jurisdiction (see id. § 267-a[13][b]). The Board exercises its original jurisdiction in special exception cases … , and thus, there was no denial by default of the petitioner’s application for a special exception permit … . With no final determination having been rendered on the application for a special exception permit, that issue was not ripe for judicial review, and the Supreme Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over that issue … . We note that ripeness “is a matter pertaining to subject matter jurisdiction which may be raised at any time, including sua sponte” … . Matter of 999 Hempstead Turnpike, LLC v Board of Appeals of the Town of Hempstead, 2022 NY Slip Op 04721, Second Dept 7-29-22

Practice Point: A town Board of Appeals’ failure to issue a decision on an application for a permit and an area variance within the 62 days prescribed by the Town Law is not a denial of the petition by default. Supreme Court, therefore, did not have subject matter jurisdiction over he purported “denial by default” and the matter was not ripe for review.

 

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