You are here: / Administrative Law
, , ,

THE COMMISSIONER’S FAILURE TO REVIEW THE HEARING OFFICER’S DETAILED DECISION BEFORE TERMINATING THE PETITIONER’S EMPLOYMENT RENDERED THE COMMISSIONER’S DETERMINATION “UNAVOIDABLY ARBITRARY” (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court in this Article 78 proceeding, determined the respondent Panunzio, Commissioner of the City of Albany’s Department of General Services, did not review the hearing officer’s detailed decision before terminating petitioner’s employment with the city. Therefore the Commissioner’s determination was “arbitrary” and the Article 78 petition should not have been dismissed:

… [F]ollowing a disciplinary hearing held pursuant to Civil Service Law § 75 (2), a hearing officer “shall make a record of such hearing which shall, with his [or her] recommendations, be referred to such officer or body [having the power to remove the employee] for review and decision” … . The resulting administrative]determinations are entitled to a presumption of regularity … and, “in the absence of a clear revelation that the administrative body made no independent appraisal and reached no independent conclusion, its decision will not be disturbed” … . …

Panunzio did not … review the Hearing Officer’s detailed and thorough decision, as such was read into the record at the hearing and the hearing transcript was not received until after the determination terminating petitioner had already been issued. As Panunzio was unable to review the Hearing Officer’s complete report and findings, respondents had “no basis upon which to act” and their determination was thus “unavoidably . . . arbitrary” … . To be sure, a reviewing officer need not review all evidence presented before the hearing officer or defer to his or her findings … . Nevertheless, to permit respondents to issue a determination without even having the availability of the Hearing Officer’s complete report and findings would render the requirements of Civil Service Law § 75 (2) meaningless … . Matter of Alexander v City of Albany, 2025 NY Slip Op 04949, Third Dept 9-11-25

Practice Point: Hear the Commissioner terminated petitioner’s employment without first reading the detailed decision by the hearing officer, which the Commissioner is required to do by statute. The Commissioner’s determination was thereby rendered “arbitrary.” Petitioner’s Article 78 petition should not have been dismissed.

 

, ,

THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE FORFEITURE OF THE VEHICLE USED FOR FOOD VENDING WITHOUT A LICENSE IS “PUNITIVE” IN NATURE AND VIOLATES THE “EXCESSIVE FINES” CLAUSES OF THE NEW YORK STATE AND UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONS; THE FINES IMPOSED FOR THE FOOD VENDING VIOLATION WERE $2600 AND THE VALUE OF THE VEHICLE IS $40,000 (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gesmer, determined the forfeiture of Thomas Jones’ vehicle for food vending without a license violated the Excessive Fines clauses of both the State and Federal Constitutions. The vehicle was worth $40,000, and the fine imposed for vending without a license was $2600:

The City … commenced this proceeding in Supreme Court pursuant to Administrative Code of City of NY §§ 17-321(c) and 17-322 to seize and order forfeiture of Jones’ truck. Administrative Code § 17—321(a) permits both public health officials and the police to enforce food vending codes. Section 17-321(c)(iii) permits police or public health officials to seize a food vending vehicle being used by an unlicensed vendor and any food being offered for sale. If forfeiture proceedings are not commenced, the vendor may be charged with the “reasonable costs for removal and storage payable prior to the release of such food, vehicle or pushcart.” Section 17—322(a) provides for forfeiture of “all property seized” from unlicensed food vendors “[i]n addition to any penalties imposed” pursuant to Section 17-325. Section 17-325(a) provides that vending food without a license is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $1,000, imprisonment for up to three months, or both. Section 17-325(c) provides for additional fines for unlicensed food vendors.

The motion court denied the City’s motion for summary judgment on the grounds that there are questions of fact as to: (1) whether the forfeiture provision at issue is punitive in nature; and (2) whether the value of the property seized is so disproportional to the fines imposed and any harm to society that it violates the excessive fines clauses of the New York and United States Constitutions. We now affirm. City of New York v Jones, 2025 NY Slip Op 04842, First Dept 9-4-25

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for an in-depth discussion of when forfeiture is deemed “punitive” in nature such that forfeiture violates the Excessive Fines clauses of the State and Federal Constitutions.

 

, , ,

THE PETITION SEEKING REVIEW OF THE BOARD OF ELECTIONS’ DECISION TO PURCHASE NEW VOTING MACHINES WHICH OPERATE BY SCANNING A BAR CODE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THE GROUND PETITIONER, COMMON CAUSE NEW YORK, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE AN INJURY-IN-FACT; COMMON CAUSE ARGUED THE USE OF A BAR CODE WHICH IS SCANNED BY THE MACHINE WILL IMPEDE VERIFICATION OF THE VOTING BALLOTS; THERE WAS A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined the petitioner, Common Cause New York, had standing to contest the State Board of Elections’ (the Board’s) approval of the use of a new voting machine on the ground the machine’s mechanism for counting votes (using a bar code) impeded the right to independently verify the voting ballots. The majority held the petitioner met the “injury-in-fact” requirement. The dissenters disagreed. Although the writ of mandamus to compel was not the proper mechanism because a discretionary, as opposed to a ministerial, act was at issue, the petition was converted to a writ of mandamus to review:

The Board … posits that petitioners cannot establish the existence of an injury that differs from the public at large. We do not believe that the facts of this case warrant “an overly restrictive analysis of [that] requirement” … . Indeed, that requirement is tempered by the principle “that standing is not to be denied simply because many people suffer the same injury,” as doing so would insulate the “most injurious and widespread Government actions” from scrutiny … . Within that context, petitioners have alleged a particularized harm flowing from the approval of the ExpressVote XL [voting machine] and, although it likely affects numerous high-propensity voters … , it is sufficiently “different in kind or degree from that of the public at large” to permit standing … . * * *

We may consider the modern view of a petitioner’s pleading requirements in a CPLR article 78 proceeding, which merely require that the petitioner ” ‘set forth his [or her] facts and his [or her] prayer for relief and such relief as is proper may be given to him [or her]’ ” … . Accordingly, “notwithstanding the nomenclature of [petitioners’] application,” … we find that their request can be readily construed as one for mandamus to review, which asks “whether a determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion” … . Matter of Common Cause N.Y. v Kosinski, 2025 NY Slip Op 04690, Third Dept 8-14-25

Practice Point: Here the petition brought in the form of a writ of mandamus to compel was deemed improper because the underlying act, the purchase of voting machines, is discretionary, not ministerial. But the court had the authority to consider the petition as a writ of mandamus to review, which was the appropriate mechanism.

 

, , , ,

ALTHOUGH PETITIONER NURSING HOME, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, HAD AN EXCELLENT INFECTION CONTROL PROGRAM, IT WAS PROPERLY FINED FOR A VIOLATION OF THE INFECTION-CONTROL REGULATIONS BY ONE OF ITS EMPLOYEES (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, confirming the findings of the administrative law judge, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Egan, determined the petitioner nursing-home-facility was subject to fines for violations of the COVID-19 infection-control regulations. The regulations required nursing home employees to change gowns and glove after being in a unit with COVID-19 positive residents. The court noted that petitioner, as a limited liability company, can be penalized for the intentional violation of regulations by its employees under an agency theory:

… [P]etitioner [limited liability company], like corporations and similar entities, may be penalized “for the intentional acts of its agents that are either (1) in violation of positive prohibitions or commands of statutes regarding corporate acts, (2) authorized through action of its officers or which are done with the acquiescence of its officers, or (3) performed on behalf of the corporation if undertaken within the scope of the agents’ authority, real or apparent” … . As it is alleged here that a regulation governing petitioner’s conduct was intentionally violated by one of its employees in the course of his work, petitioner may be penalized for that conduct, if proven. * * *

Petitioner had no deficiencies in the five infection control surveys conducted in the months leading up to the December 2020 survey, counsel for the Department conceded at the hearing that it “had a great infection control program for many months,” and the surveyor who witnessed the violation acknowledged that petitioner had developed an appropriate infection control plan and properly trained employees about their obligations under it. Respondent was nevertheless free to credit the proof that the aide violated that policy on one occasion in December 2020 and, notwithstanding petitioner’s efforts to argue otherwise, we are satisfied that such constitutes substantial evidence in the record for the determination that petitioner’s employee “violate[d], disobey[ed] or disregard[ed]” multiple provisions of 10 NYCRR 415.19 and the infection control program in the course of his work and that such rendered petitioner liable (Public Health Law § 12). Matter of RSRNC, LLC v McDonald, 2025 NY Slip Op 04131, Third Dept 7-10-25

Practice Point: Here a violation of Public Health Law regulations concerning COVID-19 infection control by an employee of petitioner nursing home, a limited liability company, warranted imposing a penalty on the nursing home.

 

, , ,

THE CITY OF KINGSTON PROPERLY OPTED IN TO A RENT STABILIZATION REGIME PURSUANT TO THE HOUSING STABILITY AND TENANT PROTECTION ACT (HSTPA), PROPERLY DECLARED A HOUSING EMERGENCY, AND PROPERLY PROMULGATED RELATED GUIDELINES (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Halligan, determined the City of Kingston properly opted in to a rent stabilization regime pursuant to the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act (HSTPA) and properly declared a housing emergency. Petitioners, a group of private landlords and an association representing landlords in the Hudson Valley, unsuccessfuly sought to invalidate Kingston’s Emergency Tenant Protection Act (ETPA) opt-in and two guidelines subsequently promulgated by the Kingston New York Rent Guidelines Board (KRGB). The opinion is too detailed to fairly summarize here:

To enter into the ETPA’s rent-stabilization regime, a municipality’s “local legislative body” must make “[a] declaration of emergency” as to all or any class of housing accommodations within the municipality. It may do so only if the vacancy rate for those housing accommodations “is not in excess of five percent” … . Once the municipality makes such a declaration, it must recommend members to be appointed to a newly formed rent guidelines board by the State Division of Housing and Community Renewal’s (DHCR) commissioner … . Matter of Hudson Val. Prop. Owners Assn. Inc. v City of Kingston, 2025 NY Slip Op 03691, CtApp 6-18-25

 

, ,

THE REGULATIONS WHICH ALLOW THE COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION TO DETERMINE WHETHER A NONPUBLIC SCHOOL OFFERS EDUCATION SUBSTANTIALLY EQUIVALENT TO THAT OFFERED BY LOCAL PUBLIC SCHOOLS WERE PROPERLY PROMULGATED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, determined the regulations which allow the Commissioner of Education to enforce the requirement that nonpublic schools provide an education “substantially equivalent” to that provided by local public schools were properly promulgated:

​Petitioners argue that 8 NYCRR 130.6 (c) (2) (i) and 8 NYCRR 130.8 (d) (7) (i) are invalid because they compel parents to “unenroll” their children from schools deemed not substantially equivalent, authorizing and necessarily leading to school closures, and that this exceeds the authority of the Commissioner. * * *

The regulatory provisions at issue here state that, in the event of a negative substantial equivalency determination, “the nonpublic school shall no longer be deemed a school which provides compulsory education fulfilling the requirements of Article 65 of the Education Law” … . A determination that a nonpublic school has failed to meet the substantial equivalence requirement leads naturally to this acknowledgement—that the nonpublic school fails to comply with the Education Law’s substantial equivalency mandate and thus is not a school that fulfills the statutory requirement for compulsory education. Far from exceeding the Commissioner’s statutory authority, the regulations simply establish a mechanism by which the statutory mandate is enforced. In this regard, instead of being contrary to the statute’s purpose, the challenged regulations are a natural consequence flowing from the statutory language itself.

Contrary to petitioners’ claims, nothing in these provisions requires that parents “unenroll” their children from a nonpublic school deemed not to provide substantially equivalent instruction. Nor do the regulations authorize school closures. The provisions merely state that the nonpublic school does not provide substantially equivalent instruction—a determination well within the authority provided to the Commissioner by the statute. The parent or custodian must determine how then to ensure their compliance with the Education Law. Matter of Parents for Educ. & Religious Liberty in Schs. v Young, 2025 NY Slip Op 03689, CtApp 6-18-25

 

, , , , ,

THE PETITIONER, A NEW YORK CITY FIREFIGHTER, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE FIRE DEPARTMENT IMPROPERLY DENIED PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR A RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION FROM THE COVID VACCINE MANDATE; SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner-firefighter did not demonstrate the NYC Fire Department (FDNY) improperly denied petitioner’s request for a religious exemption from the COVID vaccine mandate:

Pursuant to the NYCHRL [New York City Human Rights Law], it is “an unlawful discriminatory practice” for an employer “to refuse or otherwise fail to engage in a cooperative dialogue within a reasonable time with a person who has requested an accommodation” for, among other possibilities, “religious needs” (Administrative Code § 8-107[28][a][1]). Here, the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the appellants’ process for resolving requests for a reasonable accommodation from the vaccine mandate did not meet the requirements of the NYCHRL regarding cooperative dialogue … . The appellants provided information on the process for reviewing accommodation requests related to the vaccine mandate and informed employees on how to appeal request denials. The record demonstrates that the petitioner availed himself of this process. The record also shows that there were multiple communications between the petitioner, the FDNY, and the [City of New York Reasonable Accommodation Appeals Panel] regarding the petitioner’s accommodation request. The petitioner failed to establish that, under the unique circumstances present at the time of the vaccine mandate, the NYCHRL required a more robust or individualized dialogue.

The petitioner also failed to demonstrate that the determination to deny him a religious exemption from the vaccine mandate was arbitrary and capricious … . Matter of Smith v New York City Fire Dept., 2025 NY Slip Op 03728, Second Dept 6-18-25

Practice Point: Here the petitioner-firefighter had won in Supreme Court and was reinstated with back pay. But the Second Department reversed finding petitioner was not entitled to a religious exemption from the COVID vaccine mandate.

 

, , , ,

HERE PLAINTIFF’S PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF APARTMENTS WAS PROHIBITED BY A LOCAL LAW; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THE BIAS OF THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE PLANNING BOARD INFECTED THE PLANNING BOARD’S RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD (WHICH ENACTED THE LAW); THOSE ALLEGATIONS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT PRECLUDING SUMMARY JUDGMENT FINDING THE LOCAL LAW VALID (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garry, determined questions of fact precluded summary judgment in favor of the town in this dispute over the approval of the construction of apartments. Plaintiffs alleged that the chairperson of the planning board, who owned adjacent property, was biased against the proposed construction and his bias infected the planning board’s recommendation:

As Supreme Court correctly noted, the enactment that plaintiffs seek to invalidate in this action was a product of the Town Board, not the Planning Board … . We further note that it is expressly within the power of the Planning Board to submit advisory opinions to the Town Board for proposed amendment to the zoning law … . For these reasons, it is possible that the connection of the alleged bias to the action of the Town Board may ultimately be insufficiently direct. Supreme Court’s decision apparently rejected plaintiffs’ allegations on this ground. Nonetheless, accepting plaintiffs’ allegations as true, the extent to which the long-term Chairperson’s alleged bias infected the Planning Board’s recommendation to the Town Board that multifamily dwelling development be reconsidered, the Town’s subsequent investigation thereof, and the Town Board’s ultimate adoption of the challenged local law limiting same is not amenable to resolution as a matter of law at this procedural stage … . Thus, any declaration regarding the validity of Local Law No. 2022-08 was premature, and Supreme Court’s order must be reversed in full so that the action may proceed through the ordinary course. PF Dev. Group, LLC v Town of Brunswick, 2025 NY Slip Op 03671, Third Dept 6-18-25

Practice Point: Here allegations that the passage of a local law was influenced by bias on the part of the chairperson of the planning board raised a question of fact precluding summary judgment finding the local law valid.​

 

, , ,

HERE THE HOSPITAL DEFENDANTS WERE NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (NYCHRL) BUT WERE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE NEW YORK STATE HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (NYSHRL) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the defendant hospital was not entitled to summary judgment in this disability discrimination case under the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) but was entitled to summary judgment under the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL):

In order to prevail on a claim of disability discrimination under the NYCHRL, “an employer must demonstrate that it engage[d] in a good faith interactive process that assesse[d] the needs of the disabled individual and the reasonableness of the accommodation requested” … . Here, the hospital defendants failed to show that they engaged in an interactive process and reasonable accommodation analysis prior to terminating the plaintiff’s employment … .

However, the Supreme Court should have granted those branches of the hospital defendants’ motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action alleging disability discrimination under the NYSHRL insofar as asserted against them. “To establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination under the Executive Law, a plaintiff must establish, inter alia, that he or she was otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions of the position, with or without a reasonable accommodation” … . Here, the hospital defendants established, prima facie, that the plaintiff could not perform the essential functions of her job with or without a reasonable accommodation … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, under the NYSHRL, the hospital defendants cannot be held liable for failing to engage in an interactive process where the employee has failed to provide evidence to the employer that he or she could perform the essential functions of the job with or without a reasonable accommodation … . Makharadze v Ognibene, 2025 NY Slip Op 03713, Second Dept 6-18-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for an example of a disability discrimination case where the defendants were entitled to summary judgment under the New York State Human Rights Law but not under the New York City Human Rights Law.

 

,

THE TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL’S DETERMINATION THAT PETITIONERS CANNOT REDUCE THEIR NEW YORK ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME BY THE AMORTIZED PREMIUMS ON THEIR OUT-STATE-BONDS UPHELD (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Fisher, upheld the Tax Appeals Tribunal’s determination that petitioners can not reduce their New York adjusted gross income by amortized premiums on their out-of-state bonds:

Petitioners are married and residents of New York. During the years 2012 through 2016 (hereinafter the years at issue), they engaged in an investment strategy that included purchasing out-of-state bonds on the secondary market. Due to the initial interest rate of the bonds being higher than the prevailing market rate at the time of purchase, petitioners also paid an additional premium to acquire the bonds. Where the duration of a bond exceeded one year, petitioners further made an upfront premium payment for each remaining year until the bond’s maturity. As relevant here, the amount of the premium paid for each year of the bond is called the amortized premium.

On their respective tax returns for the years at issue, petitioners sought to reduce their New York adjusted gross income by the amortized premiums on their out-of-state bonds. Following an audit, notices of deficiency were issued to petitioners by the Department of Taxation and Finance (hereinafter the Department) stating that they owed additional income taxes for the years at issue, plus interest and penalties. Thereafter, the Department determined that petitioners could not subtract the premiums directly from their interest income, but rather may only report such premiums as part of their itemized deduction, and ultimately issued notices of disallowance. Matter of Ciardullo v McDonnell, 2025 NY Slip Op 03365, Third Dept 6-5-25

 

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