You are here: / Administrative Law
, ,

PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY IN THE ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING CONTESTING SUNY ALBANY’S FINDING PETITIONER VIOLATED THE CODE OF CONDUCT BY HAVING NONCONSENSUAL SEX; THE ALLEGED VICTIM HAS NO MEMORY OF THE INCIDENT; PETITIONER ALLEGED BIAS ON THE PART OF THE SCHOOL’S TITLE IX INVESTIGATOR (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined petitioner was entitled to discovery in petitioner’s Article 78 proceeding contesting SUNY Albany’s finding petitioner violated the school’s code of conduct. The student was accused of sexual misconduct, but the alleged victim had no memory of the incident. The investigation was conducted by respondent Chantelle Cleary, the Title IX coordinator at the school:

We agree with petitioner that Supreme Court erred in denying his motion for discovery. In a special proceeding such as this, discovery is available only by leave of court (see CPLR 408 …). “Among the factors weighed are whether the party seeking disclosure has established that the requested information is material and necessary, whether the request is carefully tailored to obtain the necessary information and whether undue delay will result from the request” … . Petitioner’s motion requested the disclosure of, among other things, “[r]ecordings of all meetings and interviews” between petitioner and the Title IX investigators, as well as “[r]ecordings of all interviews of all witnesses” conducted in furtherance of the investigation. Petitioner cited the alleged bias of Cleary, and the attendant bias on his guarantee of an impartial investigation, as the reason the requested discovery was “material and necessary”; respondents did not argue that the requested discovery was overbroad or would cause undue delay. Thus, we find that petitioner met the requirements for discovery … . …

Here, where the nonconsensual nature of the sexual activity was not predicated on the reporting individual’s verbal and physical manifestation of nonconsent — but on her ability to knowingly consent due to excessive inebriation — and the reporting individual avers no memory of the activity, the Board’s determination was necessarily heavily reliant on that part of the referral report that contained a summary of statements of persons who had observed the reporting individual during Friday evening, prior to her sexual encounter with petitioner. Notably, these are not sworn affidavits of the witnesses, but rather statements collected and compiled by the Title IX investigators. Matter of Alexander M. v Cleary, 2020 NY Slip Op 06987, Third Dept 11-25-20

 

, ,

TOWN PROCEEDINGS ABOUT WHETHER THE TOWN WAS OBLIGATED TO PLOW THE ROAD LEADING TO PETITIONER’S PROPERTY WAS NOT A “QUASI-JUDICIAL” PROCEEDING AND THEREFORE THE STANDARD OF REVIEW WAS NOT “SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE;” THE STANDARD IS WHETHER THE DETERMINATION WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS OR AFFECTED BY AN ERROR OF LAW (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the the town was obligated to plow the road leading to the petitioner’s property. The decision has a discussion of the evidentiary standards for review of an Article 78 proceeding:

With respect to this proceeding, … “the substantial evidence standard of review does not apply to the administrative decision at issue, since it was made after [an] informational public hearing[], as opposed to a quasi-judicial evidentiary hearing” … . “Evidentiary hearings that are constitutionally required and have some of the characteristics of adversary trials, including cross-examination, result in ‘quasi-judicial’ determinations that are subject to article 78 review in the nature of certiorari, where the ‘substantial evidence’ inquiry is applicable” (… see CPLR 7803 [4]). “In a mandamus to review proceeding, however, no quasi-judicial hearing is required; the petitioner need only be given an opportunity ‘to be heard’ and to submit whatever evidence he or she chooses and the agency [or body] may consider whatever evidence is at hand, whether obtained through a hearing or otherwise. The standard of review in such a proceeding is whether the agency [or body] determination was arbitrary and capricious or affected by an error of law” … . Matter of Weikel v Town of W. Turin, 2020 NY Slip Op 06890, Fourth Dept 11-20-20

 

,

UNIVERSITY STUDENTS WERE CHARGED WITH VIOLATIONS OF THE CODE OF CONDUCT STEMMING FROM THE RELEASE OF VIDEO CLIPS DEPICTING SKITS PERFORMED AT A ROAST HELD BY A FRATERNITY; THE SKITS INCLUDED RACIAL AND RELIGIOUS SLURS AND SIMULATED SEXUAL ACTIVITY AND VIOLENCE; THE 4TH DEPARTMENT HELD THAT THE DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES COMPORTED WITH THE RULES, THE CODE VIOLATIONS WERE SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE AND THE SANCTIONS DID NOT SHOCK ONE’S SENSE OF FAIRNESS; A STRONG DISSENT ARGUED THE CODE PROVISION PURPORTING TO PROHIBIT SPEECH WHICH “THREATENS” THE “MENTAL HEALTH” OF A PERSON IS SO VAGUE THAT IT CAN NOT SUPPORT A CONVICTION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, affirmed Supreme Court in this Article 78 proceeding contesting the disciplinary procedures used by Syracuse University (respondent), the disciplinary provisions of the respondent’s Code of Student Conduct, and the punishment imposed by respondent on the petitioners (students). The petitioners participated in a roast held by their fraternity which was videotaped. The videotaped skits “included dialogue in which students professed hatred for persons of certain races, ethnicities, and religions while using slurs to refer to those groups, and depictions of simulated sexual activity and sexual violence directed at persons imitating women and a disabled individual.” Eventually portions of the video were made public. Petitioners were afforded a group hearing and were found to have violated the charged code provisions. Sanctions which included one or two-year suspensions were imposed. After noting that private colleges are not held to constitutional free speech and due process standards, the Fourth Department determined the disciplinary procedures substantially complied with the code provisions, the evidence supported the charged code violations and the sanctions did not shock one’s sense of fairness. The dissent focused on one of the charged code provisions which prohibits “[c]onduct—whether physical, verbal or electronic, oral, written or video—which threatens the mental health, physical health, or safety of any person or persons including, but not limited to hazing, drug or alcohol abuse, bullying or other forms of destructive behavior:”

​FROM THE DISSENT:

… [T]here is one aspect of this case that I cannot reconcile with the applicable law, namely, respondent’s decision to convict petitioners of violating Section 3 of the Code. … Section 3 empowers respondent to punish any student for “[a]ssistance, participation in, promotion of, or perpetuation of conduct—whether physical, verbal[,] electronic, oral, written or video—which threatens the mental health . . . of any person or persons” … . * * *

… [D]oes that provision create any distinction between speech that merely offends and speech that truly harms another person’s psychological, psychiatric, or neuro-cognitive functioning? … [H]ow does Section 3 channel the factfinder’s discretion so as to punish only the latter and not the former? … [T]he staggering breadth of the provision is matched only by its indefiniteness, and it effectively serves as a systemic instrument for the suppression of any viewpoint that falls outside the zone of permissible opinion decreed by the most strident and self-righteous of the campus community. To convict petitioners under such a vague and standardless diktat is, to my mind, the very embodiment of arbitrary and capricious administrative decision-making that should be annulled under CPLR article 78 … . Matter of John Doe 1 v Syracuse Univ., 2020 NY Slip Op 06586, Fourth Dept 11-13-20

 

,

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

 

, ,

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

 

, , , ,

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

 

, ,

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

 

,

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

 

, ,

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

 

, ,

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

 

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