You are here: / Administrative Law
,

THE NYS GAMING COMMISSION RELIED ON HEARSAY TO FIND THAT PETITIONER, A RACE-HORSE TRAINER, VIOLATED A LIMIT IMPOSED ON THE AMOUNT OF A DRUG WHICH MAY BE ADMINISTERED TO A RACE HORSE; THE HEARSAY LETTERS FROM TWO LABORATORIES WHICH TESTED THE HORSE’S BLOOD CONSTITUTED INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF THE VIOLATION BECAUSE THE LETTERS DID NOT DESCRIBE THE TESTING METHODS AND THE RELIABILTIY OF THOSE TESTING METHODS; MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, annulling the NYS Gaming Commission’s ruling and remanding the matter for a new hearing, determined the Commission relied on hearsay to find that petitioner (a race-horse trainer) violated a rule limiting the amount of a drug (bute) which can be administered to a race horse. The petitioner brought an Article 78 proceeding arguing that the ruling was improperly based upon hearsay. The Article 78 proceeding was transferred to the Third Department:

Petitioner … contends that respondent failed to introduce competent evidence establishing the reliability of the testing that was conducted on the postrace samples that purportedly demonstrated the presence and concentration of bute. … [P]etitioner challenges the admission and reliance on a letter … providing the result of testing from the postrace sample. The objection lodged by petitioner’s counsel to the letter was that it could not be properly admitted through … the medical director for respondent … as he had not reviewed the testing data and was not involved in the testing process. … [S]n objecting to the letter received by respondent {from a second laboratory], counsel raised the same objection … . * * *

… [I]t is of particular note that the sole proof relied upon by respondent to establish that the bute concentration from postrace samples exceeded the permissible limit were the letters from the New York and California laboratories. The letter from the New York laboratory indicated the overage in bute concentration but did not provide for the method of testing, and although the method of testing was provided in the letter from the California laboratory, neither letter gave any indication as to the reliability or general acceptance of the tests utilized to ascertain the presence and concentration of bute in the postrace samples … . … [R]elying solely on the hearsay proof in this case to establish the rule violation rendered the hearing fundamentally unfair under the circumstances presented and persuades us to remand the matter for a new hearing … . Matter of Pletcher v New York State Gaming Commission, 2026 NY Slip Op 01435. Third Dept 3-12-26

Practice Point: Although an administrative agency may base a ruling on hearsay, here hearsay letters from laboratories describing the results of testing for a drug in a race horse’s blood did not rise to the level of “substantial evidence” because the testing methods and the reliability of those methods were not described.

 

, ,

THE EXECUTIVE LAW WHICH MAKES A LANDLORD’S REFUSAL TO ACCEPT TENANTS WHO RECEIVE SECTION 8 VOUCHERS AN UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE, AS A RESULT OF ACCEPTING SECTION 8 FUNDS, LANDLORDS MUST SUBMIT TO UNREASONABLE SEARCHES OF APARTMENTS AND RECORDS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Ceresia, determined Executive Law section 296(5)(a)(1) is unconstitutional. The statute makes a landlord’s refusal to rent to tenants who receive Section 8 housing vouchers an unlawful discriminatory practice. The landlords argued “the source-of-income discrimination law is unconstitutional on its face because it, in effect, requires landlords to take part in the Section 8 program, which in turn obligates them to consent to warrantless searches of their premises and records in violation of the Fourth Amendment:”

The particulars of respondents’ [landlords’] constitutional claim are as follows. By prohibiting discrimination based upon source of income, respondents argue, the Legislature has required landlords to accept Section 8 vouchers and, as a condition of participating in that program, agree to allow searches of their properties and records. More specifically, under the governing federal statutes and regulations, a potential Section 8 apartment must meet certain housing quality standards … , and in order to determine whether these standards are met, the local PHA [public housing agency] administering the program must perform an inspection of the apartment, the equipment that services the apartment and the common areas of the building before the apartment is occupied and again not less than biennially during the term of the tenancy … . Further, for purposes of assessing whether the rent charged by the landlord is reasonable, the landlord must make available to the PHA its records concerning the apartment in question as well as the amounts of rent it charges for other units, both in the building in question and in other buildings … . The landlord must sign a standard housing assistance payment (hereinafter HAP) contract, in which it agrees to provide “full and free access” to the apartment, the premises and all relevant accounts and records. Respondents contend that these inspection mandates force them to surrender the Fourth Amendment’s protections against governmental searches of private property in the absence of either voluntary consent or a warrant, neither of which are provided for here. * * *

An inspection scheme must assure that the discretion of the inspecting officers is “carefully limited in time, place, and scope” … , and we find that the Section 8 inspection regime lacks these safeguards. With respect to timing, although the regulations set benchmarks for when inspections should be performed at the outset of the tenancy and then at least once every two years thereafter there is no further guidance as to the frequency of the inspections and, indeed, they must be done whenever the PHA receives a complaint … . As for the place and scope of a search, while the regulations offer examples of interior spaces that may be searched and explain the purposes of the search, there are no limitations placed on what may be inspected. When combined with the HAP contract, which requires landlords to allow “full and free access to the contract unit and the premises, and to all accounts and other records of the owner that are relevant to the HAP contract,” the place and scope of a permissible search are exceedingly broad. Under these circumstances, the inspection scheme does not provide adequate safeguards … . Matter of People of the State of N.Y. v Commons West, LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 01253, Third Dept 3-5-26

 

, , , ,

HERE THE “PRIMARY JURISDICTION DOCTRINE” DID NOT APPLY TO REQUIRE A STAY TO ALLOW THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION (PSC) TO DETERMINE WHETHER “STRAY VOLTAGE” WAS CAUSING INJURY TO PLAINTIFF’S CATTLE AND, IF SO, HOW BEST TO MITIGATE OR REMEDIATE; THE PSC HAS NO SPECIAL EXPERTISE REGARDING THE EFFECTS OF STRAY VOLTAGE ON CATTLE; THE ISSUES ARE BEST HANDLED BY A COURT, DESPITE THE COMPETING EXPERT OPINIONS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Garry, determined the “primary jurisdiction doctrine” did not require that the civil action be stayed to allow the Public Service Commission (PSC) to determine whether “stray voltage” was harming plaintiff’s cattle and, if so, how the problem can be mitigated or remediated. Plaintiff, a cattle farmer, sued defendant electric company (which services the farm) alleging that “stray voltage” has caused “behavioral changes [in the cattle], decreased milk production, fertility issues and other health problems.” The Third Department held that the Public Service Commission was not better suited to deal with the issues presented by “stray voltage” than the court:

Assuming, without deciding, that the regulatory scheme is an appropriate means to address some of the issues underlying these tort claims … , compliance with regulatory standards is not dispositive as to due care … . Upon a stay and referral, the PSC [Public Service Commission] would have only the authority to determine whether defendant is presently operating in compliance with its administrative standards, which set forth minimum, generalized safety requirements. As PSC asserts and as evidenced by the opinions and reports of plaintiffs’ experts, the duty of care with respect to stray voltage on dairy farms may be quite different from this regulatory floor. The PSC also admittedly has no expertise in the impact of stray voltage on cattle and has advised that it would be necessary to seek out the opinion(s) of its own experts if tasked with evaluating whether any stray voltage here is “harmful” or merits mitigation beyond the aforementioned standards. * * *

As plaintiffs argue, the claims at issue, which do not arise from the PSC’s rules, regulations or policies, are common-law tort claims, requiring determinations as to familiar concepts such as duty and causation, and are inherently judicial … . As with other complicated areas of tort, the necessary expertise is initially supplied by the parties’ experts. To the extent that the divergence between those experts on scientific principles may necessitate additional guidance, Supreme Court possesses the authority to utilize a referee or court-appointed neutral expert to aid in the review of complex litigation where appropriate (see CPLR 4001, 4212 …). In sum, although the PSC’s opinion as to the existence, origin or degree of stray voltage may be informative, resolution of plaintiffs’ claims do not first require resolution of issues placed within the agency’s special competence. Frasier v Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 2026 NY Slip Op 01110, Third Dept 2-26-26

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for insight into when the “primary jurisdiction doctrine” should be applied to stay a court proceeding to allow an agency to investigate and offer guidance on the underlying issues. Here the Third Department held that the Public Service Commission did not have expertise on the issues underlying the trial, so the “primary jurisdiction doctrine” did not require that the civil action be stayed pending a PSC investigation.

 

,

PETITIONER, A PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY AGENCY FOR DISABLED PERSONS, WAS NOT ENTITLED TO UNFETTERED ACCESS TO RECORDS OF ABUSE KEPT BY RESPONDENT JUSTICE CENTER FOR THE PROTECTION OF PEOPLE WITH SPECIAL NEEDS; THE PRIVACY INTERESTS OF THE DISABLED PERSONS REQUIRE THAT PERSONS FOR WHOM THE RECORDS ARE SOUGHT BE SPECFICALLY IDENTIFIED ALLOWING RESPONDENT TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OF THE GROUNDS FOR RELEASE OF THE RECORDS DESCRIBED IN THE FEDERAL DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES ASSISTANCE AND BILL OF RIGHTS ACT APPLY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mackey, determined that the petitioner, a protection and advocacy (P & A) agency representing persons with developmental disabilities, did not have the right to unfettered access to records of abuse investigations by the respondent Justice Center for the Protection of People with Special Needs. Before access to such records can be granted, the respondent must be provided with the name of the allegedly abused person. At that point the respondent can determine whether any of the grounds for release of the records is applicable:

Our inquiry here distills to whether petitioner is entitled — in executing its investigatory, oversight function as a P & A entity — to unqualified access to records pertaining to the abuse and/or neglect of persons with developmental disabilities within subject facilities, or whether respondents properly conditioned such access upon satisfaction of the disclosure requirements delineated under the DD Act [Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act (see 42 USC § 15001 et seq.]. * * *

Satisfaction of the disclosure requirements under the DD Act thus necessitate the identification of the subject individual to either secure necessary consent or determine if circumstances otherwise permit disclosure. The result is “a carefully calibrated system that t[akes] into consideration both the privacy interests of developmentally disabled persons and the need for P & A organizations to examine records in order to pursue their statutory functions” … . Here, although petitioner’s request for records advised that it had received complaints regarding a particular facility subject to respondents’ oversight, it did not identify the subject(s) of the complaints or provide respondents any information that would allow respondents to determine whether one of the four circumstances enumerated in the DD Act applied. Nothing in the federal statutory language supports petitioner’s contention that it is permitted unqualified access to records in furtherance of its investigatory role. To the contrary, petitioner’s access is expressly conditioned upon satisfaction of one of the four above-detailed scenarios, which necessitate the identification of the individual(s) whose records are sought … . Matter of Disability Rights N.Y. v State Justice Ctr. for the Protection of People with Special Needs, 2026 NY Slip Op 01111, Third Dept 2-26-26

 

, , , ,

THE FOUR-MONTH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR BRINGING AN ARTICLE 78 PETITION CHALLENGING TERMINATION OF SECTION 8 RENT-SUBSIDY BENEFITS STARTS WHEN THE TENANT BECOMES AWARE OF THE TERMINATION; THE PETITION WAS TIME-BARRED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner became aware that the Section 8 rent subsidy benefits were terminated in December 2019 triggering the four-month statute of limitations for challenging the termination. Therefore petitioner’s 2024 article 78 petition was time-barred:

The four-month statute of limitations applies to proceedings terminating Section 8 benefits, and it begins to run upon tenant’s receipt of the T3 letter advising the tenant of that termination (see CPLR 217[1] …). The statute of limitations may be triggered in the absence of actual notice where, as here, the party knew or should have known about the determination … . The record shows petitioner had actual notice in December 2019, so the statutory limitation period to challenge termination of her subsidy started no later than December 31, 2019, and expired on April 30, 2020, well before she commenced the instant proceeding. Matter of Cruz v New York City Hous. Auth. (NYCHA), 2026 NY Slip Op 00420, First Dept 1-29-26

Practice Point: The statute of limitations for bringing an article 78 petition challenging the termination of section 8 rent-subsidy benefits starts when the tenant receives the T3 letter or when the tenant knew or should have known about the termination.

 

, ,

THE TOWN OF BABYLON INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY PROPERLY DETERMINED THAT A SENIOR HOUSING PROJECT WAS ENTITLED TO FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE UNDER THE NEW YORK STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a matter of first impression, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Duffy, determined a senior housing project was entitled to financial assistance under the authority of the New York State Industrial Development Agency Act, affirming the ruling of the Town of Babylon Industrial Development Agency:

The issue on appeal, an issue of first impression for this Court, is whether the respondent Town of Babylon Industrial Development Agency (hereinafter the Babylon IDA) operated within its statutory authority pursuant to the New York State Industrial Development Agency Act (hereinafter the Act) (article 18-A of the General Municipal Law) when it adopted a resolution … determining that a planned affordable senior housing project is included in the type of projects eligible for certain financial assistance and benefits under the Act … . The petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court … denying a petition pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review the resolution and dismissing the proceeding. … [W]e affirm on the ground that the court properly determined that the Babylon IDA operated within its statutory authority in granting financial assistance pursuant to the Act. … [T]he determination by the Babylon IDA that a plan to construct affordable senior housing constitutes a “project” as defined in General Municipal Law § 854(4) entitled to financial assistance and benefits under the Act because, among other things, the proposed construction will promote employment opportunities and combat economic deterioration, was rationally based and neither arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion, nor affected by an error of law. The interpretation by the Babylon IDA of the relevant language of the Act comports with the plain meaning of the text contained in the Act as well as the legislative intent of the Act and related authority. Matter of Wyandanch Union Free Sch. Dist. v Town of Babylon Indus. Dev. Agency, 2026 NY Slip Op 00252, Second Dept 1-21-26

 

, ,

THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING PRESERVATON AND DEVELOPMENT HAD A RATIONAL BASIS FOR FINDING THAT PETITIONER DID NOT USE HIS BROTHER’S APARTMENT AS HIS PRIMARY RESIDENCE FOR ONE YEAR PRIOR TO HIS BROTHER’S DEATH; THEREFORE PETITIONER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUCCESSION RIGHTS TO THE MITCHELL-LAMA APARTMENT; THERE WAS AN EXTENSIVE TWO-JUDGE DISSENT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Cannataro, over an extensive two-judge dissent, determined the NYC Department of Housing Preservation and Development had a rational basis for finding that petitioner did not use his brother’s apartment as his primary residence for one year prior to his brother’s death and therefore was not entitled to succession rights to the Mitchell-Lama apartment:

The administrative hearing officer found that petitioner failed to establish co-residency during the relevant one-year period. Initially, the hearing officer found petitioner’s claim that the subject apartment had been his primary residence since August 2018 was contradicted by documents addressed to him at a North Miami, Florida address during that timeframe—specifically, a February 2019 letter from the Social Security Administration and bank statements from petitioner’s Wells Fargo account for the period from October 2018 through January 2019. In addition, the hearing officer considered undated documents, documents dated outside of the one-year period and documents that did not include an address but determined such documents did not prove the requisite co-residency. The hearing officer likewise concluded that the statements from 2018 through 2020 for tenant’s bank account, listing petitioner as power of attorney, were not “credible, sufficient and reliable proof” that petitioner resided in the apartment as his primary residence. The hearing officer observed that the only documents that reflected petitioner’s address as the subject apartment during the required co-residency period were the April and May 2019 letters regarding SNAP benefits. Further, the hearing officer noted that petitioner had maintained his connection to Florida, as he had kept his Florida driver’s license throughout the co-residency period [FN2]. Based on these findings, the hearing officer denied the appeal, concluding that petitioner failed to meet the eligibility requirements. The opinion made no mention of petitioner’s failure to submit tax returns. Matter of Mantilla v New York City Dept. of Hous. Preserv. & Dev., 2025 NY Slip Op 07079, CtApp 12-18-25

 

, , ,

THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE WENT AHEAD WITH THE DRIVER’S LICENSE REVOCATION HEARING IN THE ABSENCE OF THE OFFICERS WHO ARRESTED THE DRIVER FOR DWI; THE DRIVER’S ARGUMENT HE WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS BECAUSE HE WAS UNABLE TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE OFFICERS WAS REJECTED; THE DRIVER HAD SUBPOENAED THE OFFICERS BUT CHOSE NOT TO USE THE CPLR 2308 PROCEDURE FOR ENFORCEMENT OF THE SUBPOENAS; THE AVAILABILITY OF THE ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURE WAS DEEMED “SUFFICIENT PROCESS” (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, affirming the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, determined a driver, Monaghan, whose license was automatically suspended when he refused to submit to a chemical test at the time he was arrested for DWI, was not denied due process rights when the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) revoked his license despite the arresting officers’ failure to appear at the revocation hearing. Monaghan had subpoenaed the officers and argued he was denied his right to cross-examine them. The Court of Appeal noted that Monaghan could have sought to enforce the subpoenas but chose not to. The Court found that the procedure for enforcement of subpoenas is not unduly burdensome. Therefore requiring Monaghan to use that procedure to exercise his right to cross-examine the officers does not amount to a denial of due process:

… [W]e reject the contention that Mr. Monaghan’s was deprived of his due process right to cross-examine the Troopers. His private interest in retaining his driver’s license and the government’s interest in public safety are both significant. The due process analysis, here, turns on the benefit and burden of requiring a motorist to seek judicial enforcement of a subpoena. Mr. Monaghan chose not to avail himself of the process set forth in CPLR 2308 (b). The process of applying to enforce a nonjudicial subpoena is not so unduly burdensome as to constitute a deprivation of due process of law. Our holding is consistent with appellate courts’ decisions rejecting due process challenges in other types of administrative proceedings where the petitioner has not attempted to enforce a subpoena … . It is undisputed that Mr. Monaghan did not seek enforcement, nor did he request an adjournment to do so. Matter of Monaghan v Schroeder, 2025 NY Slip Op 06959, CtApp 12-16-25

Practice Point: Here the officers who arrested the driver for DWI did not appear at the license revocation hearing. The driver argued his inability to cross-examine the officers deprived him of due process of law. However, the driver had subpoenaed the officers. He could have used the CPLR 2308 (b) procedure for enforcing the subpoenas but chose not to. The availability of the enforcement procedure was deemed sufficient process.

 

, , , ,

PETITIONERS, THE NEW YORK TAXI WORKERS ALLIANCE, HAD STANDING TO CONTEST THE NYC TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION’S PILOT PROGRAM WHICH WOULD ADD 2500 FOR-HIRE VEHICLES TO THE CITY STREETS; PETITIONERS DEMONSTRATED THE ADDED VEHICLES WOULD REDUCE MEMBERS’ INCOME (INJURY-IN-FACT) IN VIOLATION OF A LOCAL LAW (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Higgitt, reversing Supreme Court, determined the petitioners, the New York Taxi Workers Alliance and two individual drivers, had standing to challenge a pilot program initiated by the NYC Taxi and Limousine Commission as violating a Local Law. The pilot program would put 2500 more for-hire vehicles (FHV’s} on the street. Petitioners argued standing based on evidence the pilot program will lower the income of the members of the Taxi Workers Alliance. Supreme Court had held the loss-of-income claim was speculative:

… [P]etitioners established both an injury in fact and that their alleged harm satisfies the zone of interest requirement, and they therefore have standing.

… [P]etitioners allege a concrete, particularized harm: a loss of income and a deterioration of driver well-being occasioned by the introduction or potential introduction of additional vehicles into the for-hire market. That harm is neither speculative nor conjunctural; rather, it is well-demonstrated by the legislative facts underpinning Local Law 147, which facts are based, in part, on industry data. Moreover, petitioners’ alleged harm is supported by the findings of the Committee on For-Hire Vehicles as expressed in their reports. The legislative materials evince a clear connection between the number of FHVs on the streets and driver income: when the number of FHVs increases without a corresponding increase in passenger demand, driver income decreases. * * *

… [P]etitioners demonstrated that the alleged harms of loss of income and deterioration of driver well-being fall within the zone of interests or concerns promoted or protected by Local Law 147. Two of the principal interests or concerns expressly promoted or protected by the law are driver income and driver well-being (see Administrative Code § 19-550[a]; 35 RCNY 59A-06[a][1]), and the significant legislative history of Local Law 147 confirms that the City Council was concerned with the human costs associated with the exceptional growth in the FHV market, particularly drivers’ ability to earn a living. Matter of New York Taxi Workers Alliance v New York City Taxi & Limousine Commission, 2025 NY Slip Op 06551, First Dept 11-25-25

Practice Point: To have standing to challenge a local law, the challenger must demonstrate an injury-in-fact and the injury is within the scope of the protections afforded by the local law.

 

,

AN INSURER CANNOT DENY PAYMENT OF AN AUTOMOBILE-ACCIDENT NO-FAULT CLAIM ON THE GROUND THE LICENSED HEALTHCARE PROVIDER COMMITTED PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT (HERE AN ALLEGED KICKBACK SCHEME) UNLESS THE PROVIDER HAS ABDICATED CONTROL TO AN UNLICENSED PARTY (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over an extensive dissenting opinion by Judge Wilson, determined the NYS Department of Financial Services’ (DFS’s) interpretation of a regulation addressing the payment of no-fault benefits for automobile-accident injuries was rational. The issue was whether alleged professional misconduct by a licensed healthcare provider allowed the insurer to deny payment. The DFS ruled that the insurer could not deny payment of a no-fault claim based upon alleged misconduct by the licensed provider which did not amount to the provider’s abdicating control to an unlicensed party:

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has certified the question of whether a regulation promulgated by the Department of Financial Services (“DFS”) permits an insurer to deny a healthcare provider’s no-fault benefits claim because the provider allegedly committed professional misconduct by paying for patient referrals. DFS interprets its regulation to allow an insurer to deny a no-fault benefits claim only when a provider fails to fulfill a foundational licensing requirement necessary to perform healthcare services in any instance, and not when an insurer unilaterally determines that a properly-licensed provider has committed professional misconduct, short of effectively abdicating control to an unlicensed party. This interpretation is rational, because it is consistent with the regulation’s plain text, the no-fault statutory framework, and the legislative purposes of providing swift compensation to victims of motor vehicle accidents and reducing litigation costs. Therefore, as to those cases where the alleged professional misconduct does not constitute surrender of control to an unlicensed party, we answer the certified question in the negative. * * *

DFS asserts that it has long interpreted 11 NYCRR 65-3.16 (a) (12) as only encompassing pre-licensing requirements, and not standards to maintain licensure. DFS explains that State regulators have sole discretion to determine whether a provider has committed professional misconduct and, if they have, whether there should be licensing consequences that affect their ability to collect no-fault reimbursements. Only after a State regulator has determined that a provider committed professional misconduct, and it has suspended, annulled, or revoked their license, may an insurer deny the provider reimbursement of a no-fault benefits claim under 11 NYCRR 65-3.16 (a) (12). Additionally, DFS states that its interpretation of 11 NYCRR 65-3.16 (a) (12) does not preclude plaintiffs from arguing in this action that [the alleged} kickback scheme [at issue here] was so extensive as to essentially cede improper control of … to unlicensed individuals, in violation of licensing requirements. Plaintiffs argue that 11 NYCRR 65-3.16 (a) (12) allows an insurer to deny reimbursement based on its unilateral determination that a provider allegedly committed professional misconduct.

DFS’s interpretation of 11 NYCRR 65-3.16 (a) (12) is rational. … [I]nterpreting the regulation to exclude professional misconduct fully comports with the regulatory text. Government Employees Ins. Co. v Mayzenberg, 2025 NY Slip Op 06527, CtApp 11-24-25

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for insight into how a court will determine whether an agency has properly interpreted a regulation.

 

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