You are here: / Administrative Law
,

CENTURY-OLD ELEVATOR MUST BE REPLACED, DESPITE THE COST AND DESPITE THE APPARENT FACT THAT ONLY ONE OF FOUR TENANTS USED THE ELEVATOR (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Tom, determined the ruling by the NYS Department of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) ruling requiring the landlord to provide elevator service was not irrational and must be upheld. The century-old elevator needed replacement at a cost of $150,000. Apparently the building has four tenants, and only one used the elevator. The opinion is comprehensive and cannot be fairly summarized here:

DHCR in its 2017 determination interpreted its own regulations to require that if elevator service was required under the Loft Law, it was also required under the Rent Stabilization Code upon the transition of the building to rent stabilization. This interpretation by DHCR of its own regulations should be upheld to the extent it is rational and not an arbitrary and capricious reliance on the facts of the case … . Certain facts are unclear regarding if and when the elevator broke down, or when the landlord acted on a decision to terminate operations. However … that would seem not to matter under these circumstances. Since elevator service had been provided while the building was regulated as an interim multiple dwelling, that service had to be continued without regard to the economic ramifications. In this sense, the cost to the landlord is not a factor that would displace the regulatory requirements and would not support setting aside the DHCR determination. * * *

… [W]e cannot conclude that DHCR was arbitrary and capricious in its evaluation of the relevant facts or irrational in concluding that in whatever manner elevator service was terminated, that action in the absence of DHCR’s approval was inconsistent with rent stabilization, and that elevator service, as a required service, had to be restored. Matter of Leonard St. Props. Group, Ltd. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 2019 NY Slip Op 08165, First Dept 11-12-19

 

,

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION’S (DEC’S) RULING ALLOWING SNOWMOBILES TO USE A ROADWAY IN THE ADIRONDACK PARK UPHELD (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, over two dissenting opinions (three judges) held that the determination by the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to allow snowmobiles to use an existing roadway in the Adirondack Park was not irrational and should stand:

Our state’s constitutional commitment to conservation for more than a century has ensured the continued protection of the region’s iconic landscapes while providing extraordinary outdoor recreational experiences to citizens of this state and tourists from around the world. Agencies charged with managing park property must balance, within applicable constitutional, statutory and regulatory constraints, the preeminent interest in maintaining the character of pristine vistas with ensuring appropriate access to remote areas for visitors of varied interests and physical abilities. In this appeal, we review a challenge brought by environmental groups to a determination of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (“DEC”) made in consultation with the Adirondack Park Agency (“APA”) that, among other things, permits seasonal snowmobile use on an existing roadway on property recently acquired by the State and added to the Adirondack Forest Preserve. Because we are unpersuaded by petitioners’ contention that the determination either contravenes controlling motor vehicle use restrictions in the Adirondack Park State Land Master Plan (“Master Plan”) and Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers System Act (ECL 15-2701 et seq. [“Rivers Act”]) or is otherwise irrational, we affirm the challenged portion of the Appellate Division order. Matter of Adirondack Wild: Friends of the Forest Preserve v New York State Adirondack Park Agency, 2019 NY Slip Op 07520, CtApp 10-22-19

 

, ,

THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NY BOARD OF TRUSTEES’ CHARTER SCHOOL COMMITTEE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO CHANGE THE TEACHER CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR TEACHERS IN CHARTER SCHOOLS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, after finding the petitioners in one of the two actions had the capacity to sue and standing, determined the State University of New York Board of Trustees’ Charter School Committee (the Committee) did not have the authority to promulgate regulations changing the teacher certification requirements for teachers in certain charter schools:

… [I]t is a basic principle of administrative law that an agency has only “those powers expressly conferred by its authorizing statute, as well as those required by necessary implication” … . Education Law § 355 (2-a) authorizes the Committee, “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law, rule, or regulation to the contrary, . . . to promulgate regulations with respect to governance, structure and operations of [SUNY-authorized] charter schools.” Respondents assert that the regulations fall within this statutory authorization because teacher licensure pertains to the “operation” of SUNY-authorized charter schools. In analyzing this claim, we need not defer to the Committee’s interpretation of the Education Law, as “the question is one of pure statutory reading and analysis, dependent only on accurate apprehension of legislative intent” … . * * *

We … conclude that the inclusion of the word “operation” in Education Law § 355 (2-a) does not authorize the Committee to promulgate regulations pertaining to teacher licensure and certification. We further find that the regulations conflict with provisions of the Education Law that authorize the Commissioner to prescribe regulations governing the certification of teachers and that require most teachers in charter schools and pre-kindergartens to be certified in the same manner as other public school teachers … . The Committee therefore exceeded its authority in promulgating the regulations … . Matter of New York State Bd. of Regents v State Univ. of N.Y., 2019 NY Slip Op 07458, Third Dept 10-17-19

 

, ,

NO EVIDENCE THE FATAL ACCIDENT WAS CAUSED BY DRIVING TOO FAST FOR THE CONDITIONS; PETITIONER WAS TRAVELLING BELOW THE SPEED LIMIT WHEN HIS CAR STRUCK A POTHOLE, CAUSING A MECHANICAL FAILURE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the NYS Department of Motor Vehicles Administrative Appeals Board, annulled the finding that petitioner was speeding and the suspension of his driver’s license. Petitioner was traveling below the speed limit when his car struck a pothole causing a mechanical failure which resulted in a fatal accident. The Administrative Law Judge had determined petition was driving too fast for the conditions, meaning too fast for a road with potholes:

“To annul an administrative determination made after a hearing directed by law at which evidence is taken, a court must conclude that the record lacks substantial evidence to support the determination” … . Here, the determination that the petitioner violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180(a) is not supported by substantial evidence. There is no evidence to support the determination that the petitioner operated his vehicle at a speed greater than reasonable and prudent under the circumstances. There was no evidence to show that the petitioner’s speed contributed to the accident or that the vehicle would not have been damaged by the pothole had the petitioner been traveling at a lesser rate of speed … . Matter of Pepe v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 2019 NY Slip Op 06397, Second Dept 8-28-19

 

, , ,

THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE RULES PLACING CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS ON EXPRESSIVE MATTER VENDORS IN CITY PARKS ARE VALID AND ENFORCEABLE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, modifying Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Kapnick, determined that the restrictions placed on expressive matter vendors’ (EMV’s) use of public parks were valid and enforceable. “Expressive matter is defined as ‘materials or objects with expressive content, such as newspapers, books or writings, or visual art such as paintings, prints, photography, sculpture, or entertainment’ …”.

… DPR [NYC Department of Parks and Recreation] published proposed revisions to the rules applicable to EMVs. It held a public hearing, and based on comments at the hearing as well as written comments, revised the proposed rules. … Under the revised EMV Rules, while EMVs may sell in almost all City parks if they comply with certain requirements, they are restricted in Union Square Park, Battery Park, High Line Park, and portions of Central Park below 86th Street, where they may only sell their items, on a first-come, first-serve basis, in certain designated areas, and only one vendor is allowed to sell at each spot. The EMVs may always sell in the nonenumerated areas, including other City parks and sidewalks.  * * *

I. The EMV Rules do not conflict with the City Council’s legislative intent, as expressed in Local Law No. 33 of 1982. * * *

II. The EMV Rules do not violate vendors’ rights under the New York Constitution. * * *

III. Defendants are entitled to summary judgment dismissing the discrimination claims under the State and City Human Rights Law. * * *

IV. Supreme Court erred in granting plaintiffs leave to amend to add a separation of powers claim. * * * Dua v New York City Dept. of Parks & Recreation, 2019 NY Slip Op 06154, First Dept 8-20-19

 

, , ,

ALTHOUGH THE ARTICLE 78 PETITION WAS VERIFIED BY AN ATTORNEY, THE VERIFICATION WAS VALID BECAUSE THE ATTORNEY HAD FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS; IN ADDITION, ANY DEFECTS IN THE VERIFICATION WERE WAIVED BY RESPONDENTS; PRIOR ARBITRATION PURSUANT TO THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT WAS NOT AN OBSTACLE TO THE PETITION ALLEGING A VIOLATION OF THE EDUCATION LAW CONCERNING THE SUSPENSION OF A SCHOOL PRINCIPAL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the verification of an Article 78 petition by petitioner’s attorney was valid because the attorney had first hand knowledge of the contents and, even if the verification was invalid, the respondent had waived any objection to it. The matter concerns the suspension of a school principal which had been the subject of arbitration pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement. The arbitration was not an obstacle to these proceedings brought pursuant to the Education Law because the issues are not the same.  The issue involved in the Article 78 petition, an interpretation of Education Law 2566 (6), was not the kind of issue which must first be brought before the Commissioner of Education:

Although the verification requirement of CPLR 7804 (d) must ordinarily be completed by a party, a verification “may be made by [a party’s] attorney [where, as here,] all the material allegations of the pleading are within the personal knowledge of . . . [that] attorney’ ” …  Moreover, a party challenging the sufficiency of a verification is required “to give notice with due diligence to the attorney of the adverse party that he [or she] elect[ed]’ to treat the petition as a nullity” … . Thus, even assuming, arguendo, that the verification by petitioner’s attorney was insufficient, we conclude that respondents waived any challenge to the petition on that ground by failing to make the requisite diligent efforts and instead waiting a month before seeking dismissal of the petition on that basis … . …

… .[A]lthough Education Law § 310 provides … that any party aggrieved by an official act or decision of school authorities “may appeal by petition to the [C]ommissioner of [E]ducation,” the Commissioner exercises primary jurisdiction only where the matter involves an issue requiring his or her specialized knowledge and expertise … . Petitioner’s contention regarding section 2566, however, requires no more than the interpretation and application of the plain language of that statute for which no deference to the Department of Education is required … . Matter of Buffalo Council of Supervisors & Adm’rs, Local #10 v Cash, 2019 NY Slip Op 05895, Fourth Dept 7-31-19

 

, ,

COUNTY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN ITS ACTION FOR SEIZURE AND FORFEITURE OF DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE AFTER A DWI CONVICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE COUNTY DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF THE COUNTY CODE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the county’s motion for summary judgment in its action to seize defendant’s vehicle pursuant to the Nassau County Administrative Code after a DWI conviction (Vehicle and Traffic Law 1192) should not have been granted. The county did not comply with the notice requirements of the code:

…. [T]he complaint, as amplified by the plaintiff’s submissions establishing that the defendant pleaded guilty to a violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192, stated a cause of action for civil forfeiture of the vehicle pursuant to Nassau County Administrative Code § 8-7.0(g)(4) … . Accordingly, we agree with the Supreme Court’s denial of the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against her. However, in opposition to the plaintiff’s showing of its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the defendant raised a triable issue of fact by adducing evidence demonstrating that, while she was given a copy of the notice of seizure in person, the plaintiff failed to comply with the requirement of Nassau County Administrative Code § 8-7.0(g)(4)(a) that she also be served with the notice of seizure by certified mail, return receipt requested … . Accordingly, the court should have denied the plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment awarding civil forfeiture of the vehicle. County of Nassau v Urban, 2019 NY Slip Op 05762, Second Dept 7-24-19

 

, ,

THE COUNTY LEGISLATURE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION REQUIRING THE DISCLOSURE OF AN ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S FINANCIAL INFORMATION AFTER THE COUNTY ETHICS COMMITTEE DENIED THE DISCLOSURE-REQUEST MADE BY A NEWSPAPER; THE LEGISLATURE USURPED THE POWER OF A REVIEWING COURT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department annulled a resolution adopted by the Suffolk County Legislature specifically allowing the publication of the financial disclosure information provided to the County Ethics Board by an assistant district attorney. A newspaper initially made the request of the Ethics Board. The request was denied and the newspaper did not seek review of the denial. The Legislature, in direct response to the denial of the newspaper’s request,  took it upon itself to adopt the resolution allowing the information to be made public. The Second Department held that the Legislature did not have the authority to essentially act as a reviewing court by passing a resolution addressed to a specific circumstance:

The County Legislature was established to determine County policies and to exercise other functions as may be assigned to it by law … . The County Legislature exercises the County’s powers of local legislation and appropriations … . The County Legislature has broad powers to enact local legislation. However, it is fundamental that legislative power does not extend so far as to apply the rules of law to particular cases, as the power to adjudicate the applicability of the law to individual situations is a judicial power … . A legislative body may not usurp a court’s power to interpret and apply the law to the particular circumstances before it … . Thus, it was beyond the authority of the County Legislature to determine that the Ethics Board’s decision to withhold the petitioner’s financial disclosure statements from public inspection was incorrect and to take it upon itself to obtain the statements and provide for their public release. Put another way, the County Legislature wrongly placed itself in the position of a reviewing court. This is particularly disturbing where the purportedly aggrieved newspaper took no steps to vindicate its rights to disclosure of the financial statements by the Ethics Board. Matter of Prudenti v Suffolk County Legislature, 2019 NY Slip Op 05779, Second Dept 7-24-19

 

, , , , ,

THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO RECOVER MEDICAID OVERPAYMENTS FROM PERSONAL CARE SERVICE PROVIDERS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Kahn. over a two-justice dissent, determined that The City of New York Human Resources Administration Department of Social Services (HRA) does not have the authority to audit and recover overpayments of funds provided pursuant to the Health Care Reform Act (HCRA) from personal care service providers such as petitioner People Care Incorporated d/b/a Assisted Care:

The determinative issue on this appeal is not whether the HCRA funds were denominated as “Medicaid rates of payment” or “Medicaid rate adjustments” in the statute and the MOU [memorandum of understanding]. Rather, the issue presented here is whether, under the terms of the 2001 contract, Public Health Law § 2807-v(1)(bb)(i) and the MOU superseded the provisions of that contract as to the auditing and recoupment of HCRA funds. * * *

… [N]either Public Health Law § 2807-v(1)(bb), as the governing statute, nor the MOU between DOH [NYS Department of Health] and HRA, entered into pursuant to that statute, contains any language delegating DOH’s auditing and recoupment authority to HRA or any other agency. Matter of People Care Inc. v City of New York Human Resources Admin., 2019 NY Slip Op 05756, First Dep 7-23-19

 

,

THE APPELLATE DIVISION DID NOT HAVE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION BECAUSE PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING HAD BEEN DENIED, THE ARTICLE 78 PETITION, SEEKING REVIEW OF THE DISQUALIFICATION OF A BID ON A CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, WAS THEREFORE DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined it did not have subject matter jurisdiction and therefore the Article 78 petition seeking review of the disqualification of a bid on a construction project must be denied. The appellate division, by statute, has jurisdiction only after an administrative hearing. Here petitioner’s request for a hearing was denied:

To commence this proceeding here, petitioner relied on Executive Law § 313 (5) (c), which states that, “[w]ithout limiting other grounds for the disqualification of bids . . . on the basis of non-responsibility, a contracting agency may disqualify the bid . . . as being non-responsible for failure to remedy notified deficiencies contained in the contractor’s utilization plan within a period of time specified in regulations promulgated by the director after receiving notification of such deficiencies from the contracting agency.” The statute further provides that “[w]here the contracting agency states that a failure to remedy any notified deficiency in the utilization plan is a ground for disqualification[,] the contractor shall be entitled to an administrative hearing, on a record[.] . . . A final administrative determination made following such hearing shall be reviewable in a proceeding commenced under [CPLR] article [78] . . . [and] shall be commenced in [this Court]” (Executive Law § 313 [5] [c]). The last quoted portion of the statute grants this Court original jurisdiction in a proceeding to challenge a final administrative determination that was made following a specified type of hearing, which is otherwise provided for in that paragraph. Respondent’s determination at issue here was not made following a hearing; indeed, the determination dismissed petitioner’s request for a hearing and petitioner is now seeking, as relief in this proceeding, a court order compelling respondent to conduct such a hearing. As no statute grants this Court original jurisdiction to review the determination that petitioner is challenging, we must dismiss the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction … . Matter of Accadia Site Contr., Inc. v Erie County Med. Ctr. Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 05730, Third Dept 7-18-19

 

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