You are here: / Administrative Law
,

ALTHOUGH THE EMPLOYER WAIVED ITS OWN INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION, THE EMPLOYER RAISED SPECIFIC, SUBSTANTIVE OBJECTIONS TO CLAIMANT’S ORTHOPEDIST’S PERMANENCY FINDINGS, INCLUDING THE ALLEGATIONS THE ORTHOPEDIST DID NOT COMPLETELY REVIEW THE MEDICAL RECORDS AND DID NOT FOLLOW THE RELEVANT GUIDELINES; THE BOARD’S FAILURE TO ADDRESS THE EMPLOYER’S OBJECTIONS REQUIRED REVERSAL AND REMITTAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Workers’ Compensation Board and remitting the matter, determined the board should have addressed the employer’s specific objections to the permanency findings of claimant’s orthopedist (Capiola), even though the employer did not produce its own independent medical report:

Upon administrative review, the employer renewed its objections that the credibility of the medical opinion was not based on a complete review of claimant’s medical records, that claimant had not reached MMI [maximum medical improvement], that the guidelines were not followed in rendering the medical opinion and that there was inconsistency between claimant’s medical condition and his physical restrictions. …

In its decision, the Board sets forth in detail the parties’ opposing positions and then adopted the findings and decision of the WCLJ [Workers’ Compensation Law Judge]. Neither the decision of the Board nor that of the WCLJ sets forth any reasoning or analysis of the substantive issues raised by the employer. Although there was no opposing medical opinion and the Board “may not reject an uncontradicted opinion that is properly rendered” … , the issues raised by the employer in its application for review challenged the propriety and reliability of Capiola’s permanency findings. The Board’s failure to specifically address the claims raised by the employer “depriv[ed] the employer . . . of the opportunity to have the Board consider the merits of . . . issue[s] that [were] properly preserved” and precludes any meaningful review by this Court … . Matter of Ippolito v NYC Tr. Auth., 2022 NY Slip Op 01493, Third Dept 3-10-22

Practice Point: Even though the employer waived the production of its own independent medical examination in this Workers’ Compensation case, the Workers’ Compensation Board should have considered the employer’s substantive objections to the permanency findings of the claimant’s orthopedist, including allegations the orthopedist did not review all the medical records and did not follow the relevant guidelines.

 

,

THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD HAD PREVIOUSLY HELD THAT, IN A HEARING-LOSS CASE, THE FAILURE TO INCLUDE THE AUDIOGRAM (HEARING TEST) WITH THE INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION RECORD PRECLUDES CONSIDERATION OF THE EXPERT EVIDENCE; THE AUDIOGRAM WAS NOT INCLUDED HERE AND THE BOARD DID NOT EXPLAIN ITS DEPARTURE FROM PRECEDENT (BY CREDITING THE EXPERT EVIDENCE); DETERMINATION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing the Workers’ Compensation Board in this hearing-loss case, determined the carrier’s expert’s (Arick’s) failure to include the audiogram (hearing test) with the independent medical examination (IME) record required that the expert’s evidence be precluded. There was precedent to that effect and the board did not explain its departure from precedent:

Arick could not explain during his testimony, however, why a copy of his audiogram was neither provided with his IME report nor present in the Board’s file, and claimant’s counsel continued to raise this point during the hearing, on administrative appeal to the Board and now again before this Court. As claimant argues, the Board has previously determined that where an audiogram test providing the basis for a physician’s SLU [schedule loss of use] finding does not accompany the IME report and is not submitted to the Board file, that physician’s IME report and findings must be precluded … . …

The Board failed to address claimant’s contention regarding the omission of Arick’s audiogram from his IME and the record and, as such, has not provided a rational explanation for departing from its prior decision requiring that an audiogram be submitted to the Board with the IME report (see Workers’ Compensation Law § 137 [1] [a]; 12 NYCRR 300.2 [d] [4] [iii], [iv]; [12]). Inasmuch as the Board has not provided a rational basis for departing from its own precedent, its decision must be reversed … . Matter of Cala v PAL Envtl. Safety Corp., 2022 NY Slip Op 01498, Third Dept 3-10-22

Practice Point: If the Workers’ Compensation Board departs from its own precedent without explanation, the determination will be reversed.

 

, , ,

A STATEMENT FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AUTHENTICATING PHOTOGRAPHS OF PETITIONER’S CAR RUNNING A RED LIGHT NEED NOT BE NOTARIZED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the city (NYC) was not required to submit a notarized statement from the Department of Transportation authenticating photographs of petitioner’s car running a red light:

For over half a century, the legislature has consistently provided for prima facie liability for minor traffic offenses to be established by a simple, nonnotarized affirmation under penalty of perjury, using the same “sworn to or affirmed” language. Legislative history establishes the plain intent and meaning of the “sworn to or affirmed” language of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1111-a(d): that the reviewing technician merely affirm, under penalty of perjury, the veracity of his statement. No notarization is necessary.

In the instant administrative proceeding, the notice of liability was supported by the requisite affirmation. The video images authenticated by the technician show petitioner’s car running a red light. This constitutes, as per the statute, “prima facie evidence” of the traffic violation (Vehicle and Traffic Law §1111-a[d]). Matter of Monroe St. v City of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 00972, First Dept 2-15-22

 

, , ,

THE NYC LOFT BOARD PROPERLY REMITTED THE MATTER FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN THIS ACTION CONCERNING A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN WHICH THE TENANTS PURPORTED TO WITHDRAW THEIR APPLICATION FOR LOFT LAW COVERAGE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the NYC Loft Board properly remitted the matter for further proceedings in this proceeding involving a settlement agreement in which the tenants purported to withdraw their application for Loft Law coverage:

… [T]he matter [is] remitted to the Appellate Division with directions to remand to the New York City Loft Board for further proceedings in accordance with this memorandum.

In accordance with its regulations (see 29 RCNY § 1-06 [j] [5]), the Loft Board reviewed and rejected the parties’ proposed settlement agreement as perpetuating an illegal living arrangement. The rationality of that determination is not before us … . Under these limited circumstances, it was not irrational for the Board to remand for further proceedings, thereby declining to give effect to a provision of the settlement agreement in which tenants purported to withdraw their application for Loft Law coverage. Matter of Callen v New York City Loft Bd., 2022 NY Slip Op 00957, Ct App 2-15-22

 

, , ,

THE SO-CALLED TWO-HOUR RULE, REQUIRING THE REQUEST FOR A DWI BREATH TEST BE MADE AND THE REFUSAL WARNINGS BE GIVEN WITHIN TWO HOURS OF ARREST, DOES NOT APPLY TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE LICENSE REVOCATION HEARINGS HELD BY THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES (DMV); THEREFORE THE FACT THAT THE PETITIONER WAS ASKED TO TAKE THE BREATH TEST AND WAS GIVEN THE REFUSAL WARNINGS THREE HOURS AFTER ARREST DID NOT PRECLUDE THE DMV FROM CONSIDERING PETITIONER’S TEST REFUSAL (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFore, over a dissenting opinion, determined the so-called two-hour rule does not apply to a driver’s license revocation administrative hearing after a DWI arrest. Within two hours of arrest the police can warn the driver that a refusal to submit to the blood-alcohol breath test is admissible at trial. If the request to submit to the test is made and the refusal warnings are given more than two hours after arrest, however, the refusal is not admissible at trial. Here the petitioner refused the DWI breath test three hours after arrest, after the refusal warnings were given. He argued the two-hour rule should apply and the refusal should not be considered at the Department of Motor Vehicle’s (DMV’s) administrative license revocation hearing:

Petitioner’s reliance on the statutory interpretation analysis in People v Odum [31 NY3d 344] as support for a motorist’s substantive right to refuse a chemical test without consequence is misplaced. Odum addressed the admissibility at trial of the results of a chemical test administered more than two hours after the defendant’s arrest, and whether the refusal warnings, including the inaccurate warning regarding the use of any refusal at a criminal trial, as given to him rendered his consent to the test involuntary. We emphasized that the 1973 statute authorizing the admissibility of evidence of a test refusal at a criminal trial was in derogation of common law and concluded as a result that the statutory provision authorizing such admission—Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 (2) (f)—had to be strictly construed to include the two-hour rule … . In stark contrast, the limitation on the scope of the revocation hearing in section 1194 (2) (c) is not in derogation of the common law and is a subsequently enacted provision that specifically governs the issues that may be considered at an administrative hearing … . Matter of Endara-Caicedo v Vehicles, 2022 NY Slip Op 00959, CtApp 2-15-22

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH CLAIMANT DID NOT SUCCEED IN DEMONSTRATING HER CONDITION HAD WORSENED SUCH THAT SHE WAS ENTITLED TO INCREASED BENEFITS, HER COUNSEL’S FEES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN RESCINDED BY THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD (THIRD DEPT). ​

he Third Department, reversing (modifying) the Workers’ Compensation Board, determined the rescission of the award of claimant’s counsel’s fee on the ground that the claim was unsuccessful was arbitrary and capricious. Claimant was unable to show her condition had worsened entitling her to increased benefits:

The initial application submitted by claimant’s counsel, which sets forth in detail the services rendered and the time spent in connection therewith, reflects that counsel represented claimant for a number of years, engaged in extensive correspondence with, among others, claimant, Petroski [claimant’s treating physician] and the carrier, reviewed various reports, attended hearings and successfully sought and obtained a reopening of this matter. Although counsel ultimately did not succeed in obtaining an increase in claimant’s loss of wage-earning capacity, the Board rescinded the fee award solely upon counsel’s unsuccessful efforts in this regard. Notwithstanding the Board’s broad discretion, this single-factor reasoning strikes us as arbitrary and capricious — particularly in view of the fact that claimant clearly received an economic benefit from counsel’s overall representation of her. Matter of Simmons v Glens Falls Hosp., 2022 NY Slip Op 00712, Third Dept 2-3-22

 

, , ,

PETITIONER FAILED TO EXHAUST AVAILABLE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES AFTER THE APPLICATION FOR A BUILIDING PERMIT WAS DENIED BY APPEALING TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS; THE FAILURE WAS NOT EXCUSED ON THE GROUND THAT A CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE WAS AT STAKE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner did not exhaust the available administrative remedies before bringing an Article 78 proceeding. Petitioner’s application for a building permit, apparently for a gas station, was denied by the village building inspector. Supreme Court, pursuant to the Article 78, granted the petition. The Second Department held that petitioner’s failure to appeal the building inspector’s ruling to the zoning board of appeals rendered the petition abandoned. Petitioner’s argument that the failure to exhaust administrative remedies should be excused because a constitutional issue was at stake was rejected:

“The exhaustion rule … is not an inflexible one. It is subject to important qualifications. It need not be followed, for example, when an agency’s action is challenged as either unconstitutional or wholly beyond its grant of power, or when resort to an administrative remedy would be futile or when its pursuit would cause irreparable injury” … . …

 “‘A constitutional claim that hinges upon factual issues reviewable at the administrative level must first be addressed to the agency so that a necessary factual record can be established'” … . “Further, the mere assertion that a constitutional right is involved will not excuse the failure to pursue established administrative remedies that can provide the required relief” … . Matter of 5055 N. Blvd., LLC v Incorporated Vil. of Old Brookville, 2022 NY Slip Op 00424, Second Dept 1-26-22

 

, , , ,

A ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION ABSENT AN APPEAL FROM AN ORDER OR OTHER DETERMINATION BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL CHARGED WITH ENFORCING THE ZONING CODE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, noted that a Zoning Board of Appeals has no jurisdiction unless there is an appeal from an order or decision or determination made by an administrative official charged with enforcement of zoning ordinances:

Pursuant to the Code of the Town of Webster, absent an “order, requirement, decision or determination by any administrative official of the Town” charged with the enforcement of the Town’s local zoning ordinance, the ZBA is without jurisdiction to hear an appeal … . * * *

…[W]e conclude on this record that there was no determination … affording jurisdiction to the ZBA to hear petitioner’s appeal … . Matter of Webster Citizens for Appropriate Land Use, Inc. v Town of Webster, 2021 NY Slip Op 07370, Fourth Dept 12-23-21

 

, , , ,

AN APPELLATE COURT HAS THE POWER TO CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT WHICH WAS NOT BEFORE THE MOTION COURT; THE REGULATION MANDATING CERTAIN VACCINES DOES NOT VIOLATE THE SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE OR EXCEED THE REGULATORY POWERS OF THE NYS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged, comprehensive opinion by justice NeMoyer which cannot be fairly summarized here, held the appellate court had the power to determine a request for a declaratory judgment which was not raised in the motion court, and the regulation mandating certain vaccines, 10 NYCRR 66-1.1(1) , does not violate the separation of powers doctrine or exceed the regulatory powers of the NYS Department of Health:

The legislature has determined that vaccines save lives. It has therefore established a mandatory “program of immunization . . . to raise to the highest reasonable level the immunity of the children of the state against communicable diseases” (Public Health Law § 613 [1] [a]). And by promulgating 10 NYCRR 66-1.1 (l), respondents-defendants-appellants (defendants) merely implemented the legislature’s policy in a manner entirely consistent with the legislative design. We therefore hold that 10 NYCRR 66-1.1 (l) is valid, does not violate the separation of powers doctrine, and does not exceed the authority of its promulgator. Matter of Kerri W.S. v Zucker, 2021 NY Slip Op 07349, Fourth Dept 12-23-21

 

,

THE PISTOL LICENSING SERVICE’S DENIAL OF PETITIONER’S APPLICATION FOR A PISTOL LICENSE HAD A RATIONAL BASIS AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ANNULLED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Pistol License Section’s (PLS’s) denial of petitioner’s application for a pistol licenses had a rational basis and should not have been annulled:

… [T]he denial of the petitioner’s application for a pistol license had a rational basis and was not arbitrary and capricious. The PLS’s investigation of the petitioner’s application revealed a lengthy history of domestic incidents that involved, at various points, the petitioner, the petitioner’s wife, a close family member of the petitioner, and the close family member’s domestic partner. These incidents included heated verbal disputes, arguments where property was damaged, shoving matches, and a situation where the close family member wielded a loaded shotgun in the presence of police officers. During many of these incidents, the close family member was intoxicated; in several others, the close family member threatened suicide. These incidents provided a rational basis for denying the petitioner’s application … . Moreover, the petitioner’s rationale for not disclosing these incidents to the PLS—that the close family member was not a member of the petitioner’s “household” because the close family member lived in an allegedly private basement apartment in the petitioner’s home—was misleading and provided a “rational basis for the [PLS] to conclude that [the] petitioner did not meet the good moral character standard” … . Matter of Franzese v Ryder, 2021 NY Slip Op 07285, Second Dept 12-22-21

 

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