You are here: / Administrative Law
, ,

FAILURE TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES IS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE WHICH CAN BE WAIVED; THE JUDGE, THEREFORE, SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE ARTICLE 78 PETITION ON THAT GROUND; PETITION REINSTATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Article 78 proceeding should not have been dismissed, sua sponte, on the ground petitioner had not exhausted his administrative remedies, which is an affirmative defense to be raised by the respondent, not the judge:

The Supreme Court’s sua sponte dismissal of the proceeding for the petitioner’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies was error. “Failure to exhaust administrative remedies is not an element of an article 78 claim for relief, but an affirmative defense which must be raised by respondent either in an answer or by preanswer motion or else be deemed waived” … . Matter of Bobar v Transit Adjudication Bur., 2021 NY Slip Op 01255, Second Dept 3-3-21

 

, , , ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE DEFERRED TO THE NYC BOARD OF STANDARDS AND APPEALS’ INTERPRETATION OF AN AMBIGUOUS ZONING RESOLUTION WHICH ALLOWED THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 55 STORY CONDOMINIUM BUILDING; THE BUILDING IS COMPLETE AND THE DOCTRINE OF MOOTNESS APPLIES TO PRECLUDE THE APPEAL (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Singh, reversing Supreme Court, determined Supreme Court should have deferred o the judgment of the NYC Board of Standards and Appeals (BSA) which allowed the construction of a 55 story condominium building. At issue was an ambiguous Zoning Resolution and the relationship between zoning lots and tax lots. The First Department held that the BSA had the necessary expertise to interpret the relevant statute and Supreme Court should have allowed the BSA’s interpretation to stand. In addition, the First Department found that the mootness doctrine had not been waived and the doctrine applied to the appeal because the building was fully completed and so steps to halt construction had been taken during the lengthy litigation:

The BSA’s interpretation of the relevant subdivision was “neither irrational, unreasonable nor inconsistent with the governing statutes” … . It rationally interpreted the resolution and properly considered Amsterdam’s reliance on the DOB’s [NYC Department of Building’s] longstanding Minkin Memo and the history of the block, as several other buildings on the block were issued certificates of occupancy, even though they also include partial tax lots. “When an agency adopts a construction which is then followed for ‘a long period of time,’ such interpretation ‘is entitled to great weight and may not be ignored'” … . …

“[T]he doctrine of mootness is invoked where a change in circumstances prevents a court from rendering a decision that would effectively determine an actual controversy”… . In the construction context, “several factors [are] significant in evaluating claims of mootness[,] [c]hief among them [being] a challenger’s failure to seek preliminary injunctive relief or otherwise preserve the status quo to prevent construction from commencing or continuing during the pendency of the litigation” … . Matter of Committee for Environmentally Sound Dev. v Amsterdam Ave. Redevelopment Assoc. LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 01228, First Dept 3-2-21

 

, , , , ,

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 Third Department determined plaintiffs’ complaint in this PFOA contamination case properly survived defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The court found that the doctrine of primary jurisdiction did not apply, defendant owed plaintiffs a duty of care, defendant did not demonstrate it did not proximately cause the alleged injuries, there was a question of fact on the private nuisance and trespass causes of action, and the punitive damages claim was proper. With respect to the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, the court wrote:

[The] doctrine “applies where a claim is originally cognizable in the courts, and comes into play whenever enforcement of the claim requires the resolution of issues which, under a regulatory scheme, have been placed within the special competence of an administrative body; in such a case the judicial process is suspended pending referral of such issues to the administrative body for its views”… . Defendant argues that the various regulatory agencies, who have the requisite expertise, have been investigating the matter at issue and that the recovery sought by plaintiffs is already being provided by these agencies. We disagree. Although defendant points to an announcement that the Department of Health will be providing medical monitoring, this announcement merely stated that a study was being proposed and that, if funded, the study would last for five years. Contrary to defendant’s representation, there was no definitive statement that the medical monitoring would be provided. As to the remediation of plaintiffs’ private wells, the consent order and other announcements, upon which defendant relies, do not address all of the relief requested by plaintiffs in the second amended complaint. Accordingly, defendant’s argument is without merit. Burdick v Tonoga, Inc, 2021 NY Slip Op 01178, Third Dept 2-25-21

 

, ,

THE FINDINGS LEADING TO THE TERMINATION OF PETITIONER WERE CONCLUSORY AND DID NOT ALLOW MEANINGFUL REVIEW; PETITIONER’S SUPERVISOR, WHO BROUGHT THE MISCONDUCT CHARGES, CHOSE THE HEARING OFFICER AND TESTIFIED AT THE HEARING, SHOULD RECUSE HERSELF FROM FURTHER PROCEEDINGS ON REMITTAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, annulling the termination petitioner’s employment with the county, determined the findings were conclusory and therefore did not allow meaningful review. In addition, the Third Department held that petitioner’s supervisor, KIssane, who brought the misconduct charges, chose the hearing officer and testified at the hearing, should be disqualified from the proceedings on remittal:

“Administrative findings of fact must be made in such a manner that the parties may be assured that the decision is based on the evidence in the record, uninfluenced by extralegal considerations, so as to permit intelligent challenge by an aggrieved party and adequate judicial review” … . The Hearing Officer made, at most, conclusory statements that petitioner was guilty of the relevant charges. More to the point, he failed to support these conclusions with any factual evidence adduced at the hearing … .. In the absence of specific factual findings, meaningful judicial review cannot be conducted. Accordingly, the determination must be annulled and the matter remitted for the development of appropriate findings … . * * *

“Although involvement in the disciplinary process does not automatically require recusal, . . . individuals who are personally or extensively involved in the disciplinary process should disqualify themselves from reviewing the recommendations of a Hearing Officer and from acting on the charges” … . Matter of Morgan v Warren County, 2021 NY Slip Op 01107, Third Dept 2-18-21

 

, ,

2016 REGULATIONS RESTRICTING ATTORNEY’S FEES FOR CLAIMS MADE TO THE OFFICE OF VICTIM SERVICES (OVS) ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE (EXECUTIVE LAW) AND RATIONAL (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, over a two-judge dissent and a concurrence, reversing the Appellate Division, determined that the Office of Victim Services (OVS) regulations limiting attorney’s fees for crime victim claimants were consistent with the statutory language and rational:

OVS regulations formerly provided that claimants had a “right to be represented . . . at all stages of a claim” … and, “[w]henever an award [was] made to a claimant who [was] represented by an attorney, [OVS was required to] approve a reasonable fee commensurate with the services rendered, up to $1,000,” unless the request for attorneys’ fees was premised on a claim “submitted without legal or factual basis” … . OVS acknowledges that this meant that attorneys’ fees, if reasonable, were available at all stages of a claim. However, effective January 13, 2016, OVS amended 9 NYCRR § 525.9 to provide that “[a]ny claimant . . . may choose to be represented before [OVS], at any stages of a claim, by an attorney-at-law . . . and/or before the Appellate Division upon judicial review of the office’s final determination,” but “only those fees incurred by a claimant during: (1) the administrative review for reconsideration of such decision . . . ; and/or (2) the judicial review of the final decision of [OVS] . . . may be considered for reimbursement” … .

OVS issued a regulatory impact statement indicating that the “purpose of th[e] rule change [wa]s to limit attorneys’ fees pursuant to article 22 of the Executive Law.” OVS stated that the amendments were “designed to conform the regulations to the enacting statute,” explaining that the prior regulations permitted claimants to recover attorneys’ fees that “far exceed[ed]” the “reasonable expenses” specified under Executive Law § 626 (1). OVS indicates that Victim Assistance Programs (VAPs) are federally funded with a state match, and it emphasized in its regulatory impact statement that it “fund[ed] 228 [VAPs] across New York State, distributing in excess of $35 million to these programs to assist and advocate on behalf of victims and claimants.” The required services provided by the VAPs include, among other things, “assist[ing] victims and/or claimants in completing and submitting OVS applications and assist[ing] claimants through the claim process.” OVS determined that the legislature did not intend that attorneys’ fees incurred in relation to assistance within the scope of services provided by VAPs would be considered reasonable under the statute. Matter of Juarez v New York State Off. of Victim Servs., 2021 NY Slip Op 01091, CtApp 2-18-21

 

, ,

EVICTION WAS TOO SEVERE A PENALTY FOR PETITIONER’S MOMENTARY LOSS OF CONTROL DURING WHICH SHE STRUCK A NYC HOUSING AUTHORITY EMPLOYEE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the NYC Housing Authority (NYCHA) should not have penalized petitioner for striking a NYCHA employee by evicting her:

The termination of the tenancy of petitioner, a now 64-year-old woman who has been a NYCHA tenant without incident for more than 40 years and will be evicted from her home along with her adult daughter because she suffered a momentary loss of control when she struck respondent’s employee, whom she believed to be in a relationship with her former partner, is “so disproportionate to [her] offense, in the light of all the circumstances, as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness” … .

Given the facts presented as well as the lack of any evidence presented by NYCHA that petitioner’s continued occupancy presents a concern to the safety of NYCHA employees or a risk to the other NYCHA tenants, this Court finds that a lesser penalty is warranted … . Matter of Bryant v Garcia, 2021 NY Slip Op 00521, First Dept 2-2-21

 

, , ,

THE NYC BOARD OF HEALTH’S RESOLUTION MANDATING VACCINATION AGAINST MEASLES IS VALID AND LAWFUL; THE OBJECTIONS RAISED ON RELIGIOUS GROUNDS WERE REJECTED BECAUSE THE RESOLUTION DID NOT SINGLE OUT, TARGET OR EVEN MENTION RELIGION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged, comprehensive opinion by Justice Scheinkman, determined the resolution by the NYC Board of Health mandating vaccination against measles was lawful and valid and did not violate petitioners’ freedom of religion. As a threshold matter the court considered the matter as an exception to the mootness doctrine, because measles outbreaks are likely to occur in the future:

On April 17, 2019, the Board of Health of the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene of the City of New York adopted a resolution stating that, due to the active outbreak of measles among people residing within certain areas of Brooklyn, any person over the age of six months who was living, working, or attending school or child care in the affected areas had to be immunized against measles, absent a medical exemption. Failure to comply was made punishable by fines authorized by law, rule, or regulation, for each day of noncompliance. The plaintiffs/petitioners (hereinafter the petitioners), residents of areas covered by the resolution, challenge its validity. We hold that the resolution was lawful and enforceable, reserving, however, whether any fine imposed upon violation is excessive. The resolution was within the authority of the Board of Health of the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene to make and the resolution itself did not violate any right of the petitioners, including their freedom of religion. * * *

The petitioners profess to hold religious beliefs that hold that a healthy body should not assimilate foreign objects, including vaccine ingredients … . * * *

The Board’s resolution does not target religion or single out religion; it does not even mention religion. There is absolutely no indication that the resolution was adopted for the purpose of infringing the petitioners’ religious practices or suppressing their religious views … . The resolution treats all persons equally, whether religious or not … . The resolution does not create any favored classes at all, much less ones that are secular rather than religious. As the resolution is religiously neutral and generally applicable, it is not subject to strict scrutiny. C.F. v New York City Dept. of Health & Mental Hygiene, 2020 NY Slip Op 07867, Second Dept 12-23-20

 

, ,

SUPREME COURT WENT BEYOND THE PERMISSIBLE REVIEW OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION’S DETERMINATION UNION CARBIDE’S FOIL REQUESTS WERE MOOT BECAUSE THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS HAD BEEN PROVIDED; ONCE SUPREME COURT FOUND THAT THE FOIL REQUEST WAS NOT MOOT BECAUSE THERE WERE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS, IT SHOULD NOT HAVE GONE ON TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS WERE EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court and remitting the matter to the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEP), determined Supreme Court exceeded its review powers with respect to DEP’s response to petitioner’s (Union Carbide’s) FOIL requests. Union Carbide sought documents relating to a study which determined the radioactive slag found at sites owned by Union Carbide was not the same as the radioactive slag produced by Union Carbide’s predecessor. The DEP had determined the FOIL requests were moot because the requested documents had been produced. Supreme Court properly held that the requests were not moot, but then improperly went on to consider whether the additional requested documents were protected from disclosure:

… [T]he administrative determination was that the first two FOIL requests were closed and that the administrative appeal with respect to the third FOIL request was moot given the production of responsive records prior to and following the filing of the appeal. As such, Supreme Court’s review was limited to whether the appeal was moot on the basis offered by the FOIL Appeals Officer, that being, whether all responsive records had been provided. By virtue of respondent’s in camera submission of additional documents to the court, it was evident that all responsive records had not been provided, and the administrative determination should have been annulled. However, in reviewing the subject documents and finding that those documents, with the exception of the site classification report, were statutorily exempted from disclosure, Supreme Court went beyond its mandate to “judge the propriety of [the agency’s] action solely by the grounds invoked by the agency” … . Accordingly, there was no basis for the court to determine that any exemption justified the withholding or redacting of the additional documents submitted to the court … . Inasmuch as the record demonstrates that additional documents responsive to petitioners’ FOIL requests exist and were not yet produced or examined by respondent’s FOIL Appeals Officer, we remit to Supreme Court to direct respondent to respond to petitioners’ FOIL requests by reviewing the additional subject documents and to determine in the first instance whether they are statutorily exempted from disclosure under the Public Officers Law. Matter of Union Carbide Corp. v New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 2020 NY Slip Op 07445, Second Dept 12-10-20

 

,

THE RECEIPT OF THE LETTER BY CERTIFIED MAIL, NOT THE PRIOR RECEIPT OF AN EMAIL WITH THE LETTER ATTACHED, TRIGGERED THE FOUR-MONTH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR BRINGING AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING; THE OMISSION OF THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE RESPONDENTS BE SERVED WITH THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE COULD BE REMEDIED BY AN EXTENSION OF THE TIME TO EFFECT SERVICE PURSUANT TO CPLR 306-B (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the receipt of a letter by certified mail on January 22, not the receipt of the email with the letter attached on January 17, started the four-month statute of limitations for the Article 78 action. The letter was the final determination of the respondent Department of Health, denying petitioner’s application to open an assisted living facility.  In addition, the Third Department determined a mistake made in the order to show cause, which did not require service upon the respondents, could be remedied. Therefore petitioners should be granted an extension of time to serve respondents pursuant to CPLR 306-b:

There is no dispute that the January 17 letter constituted a final and binding determination. At issue is whether counsel’s receipt of the January 17 email or counsel’s receipt of the January 17 letter by certified mail on January 22, 2019 provided the notice necessary to trigger the running of the statute of limitations. …

We recognize that there is only one letter, the January 17 letter, a copy of which was attached to the January 17 email and the original was delivered by certified mail on January 22, 2019. That said, even though an email delivery could have sufficed, respondents opted to effect delivery of the January 17 letter through the more formal certified mailing process, by which actual delivery and receipt are confirmed with the recipient’s signature. Given that format, it was not necessarily unreasonable for petitioners to have assumed that receipt of the January 17 letter on January 22, 2017 triggered the limitations period or, at least, an ambiguity was created as to whether to measure the time period from that date. As such, we conclude that Supreme Court erred in granting respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition as untimely … . …

Petitioners submitted, and Supreme Court signed, a proposed order to show cause providing for service upon respondents by service on the Attorney General. Petitioners complied with the terms of that order, but such service was manifestly defective because petitioners were also statutorily required to effect service upon respondents (see CPLR 307, 7804 [c]). In their cross motion, petitioners promptly sought permission to correct this error, and it is evident that respondents were in no way prejudiced. Not to be overlooked is the looming expiration of the statute of limitations. Under such circumstances, rather than dismissing a proceeding, a court is authorized to extend the time for service “upon good cause shown or in the interest of justice” (CPLR 306-b …). Matter of Park Beach Assisted Living, LLC v Zucker, 2020 NY Slip Op 07264, Third Dept 12-3-20

 

,

THE GROUNDS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION’S DENIAL OF PETITIONER PROPERTY OWNER’S APPLICATION TO PARTICIPATE IN THE BROWNFIELD CLEANUP PLAN WERE IRRATIONAL AND UNREASONABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the petitioner property owner’s application to participate in the Brownfield Cleanup Plan (BCP) should not have been denied by the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEP) on the grounds that; (1) the petitioner had already entered an agreement to cleanup the property; and (2) an additional financial burden would be imposed on the state. Both grounds were deemed irrational and unreasonable:

… [T]he DEC’s determination that the public interest would not be served by granting the petitioner’s application because National Grid had already agreed to remediate the site pursuant to the consent order was irrational and unreasonable. We hold, consistent with the determinations reached by several other courts, that a “brownfield site” is not ineligible for acceptance into the BCP “on the ground that it would have been remediated in any event” … . …  [A]ny “financial misgivings” (id. at 167) concerning the fiscal impact of a property being accepted into the BCP on the state is irrelevant to the question of whether the public interest would be served by the granting of an application to participate in the BCP. The DEC is not tasked with acting as “a fiscal watchdog” … .

… [T]he DEC’s determination that the site was ineligible for acceptance into the BCP on the ground that it is was “subject to [an] on-going state . . . environmental enforcement action related to the contamination which is at or emanating from the site” is also irrational and unreasonable … . There is no support in the language of the statute ECL 27-1405(2)(e) or in its legislative history for the DEC’s conclusion that the consent order constituted an ongoing enforcement action … . Matter of Wythe Berry, LLC v New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 2020 NY Slip Op 07076, Second Dept 11-25-2o

 

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