Administrative Law – Page 23 – New York Appellate Digest

PRIVATE COLLEGE DID NOT ADHERE TO ITS PUBLISHED RULES AND GUIDELINES AND FAILED TO INFORM PETITIONER-STUDENT OF HIS RIGHT TO SUBMIT QUESTIONS TO HIS ACCUSER, DETERMINATION THAT PETITIONER VIOLATED THE COLLEGE SEXUAL MISCONDUCT POLICY ANNULLED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing the Supreme Court, determined petitioner-student was not afforded his due process rights in proceedings brought by a private college (Hamilton) stemming from allegations petitioner had violated the college’s sexual misconduct policy (Policy). Petitioner was not informed of his right to submit questions to his accuser:

Here, the parties agree that respondents did not have to afford petitioner a hearing under either Education Law § 6444 (5) (b) (ii) or the due process clauses of the State and Federal Constitutions. The parties further agree that petitioner did not have a right to confront or cross-examine witnesses against him … . Nevertheless, the College was required to ensure that its published rules were “substantially observed”… . This the College did not do.

At oral argument on the petition in Supreme Court and in their brief on appeal, respondents asserted that the Policy permits accused students to ask questions of accusers or witnesses in writing. …

Inasmuch as the United States Supreme Court has recognized that the right to ask questions of an accuser or witness is a significant and critical right (see generally Chambers v Mississippi, 410 US 284, 295 [1973]), we conclude that respondents’ failure to inform petitioner that he had such a right establishes that they did not substantially adhere to the College’s own published rules and guidelines requiring them to inform petitioner, i.e., the “individual whose conduct is alleged to have violated th[e] Policy,” of all of the campus judicial rules and procedures. We therefore reverse the judgment, reinstate the petition, grant the petition, annul the determinations that petitioner violated the College’s Policy and direct respondents to adhere to the College’s published rules and guidelines in any future proceeding against petitioner related to the incident reports. Matter of A.E. v Hamilton Coll., 2019 NY Slip Op 04833, Fourth Dept 6-14-19

June 14, 2019

Administrative Law, Civil Procedure, Contract Law, Education-School Law, Employment Law, Negligence

SCHOOL EMPLOYEE’S NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION IS NOT GOVERNED BY THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (CBA), NO NEED TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES; DENIAL OF MEDICAL LEAVE DID NOT HAVE RES JUDICATA OR COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL EFFECT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined an employee’s personal injury complaint against the NYC Department of Education (DOE), stemming from an elevator accident, should not have been dismissed. The plaintiff-employee first applied to the DOE for line of duty injury paid medical leave pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and was denied. Plaintiff then commenced the personal injury action. The DOE argued that plaintiff had failed to exhaust the administrative remedies required by the CBA and, in the alternative, the denial of the line of duty pay should be given res judicata or collateral estoppel effect. Supreme Court decided plaintiff had failed to exhaust the administrative remedies. The Second Department held that her injury and the resulting negligence action were not covered by the CBA:

An employee covered by a collective bargaining agreement which provides for a grievance procedure must exhaust administrative remedies prior to seeking judicial remedies … or face dismissal of the action …. Here, however, the plaintiff seeks to recover damages against the defendants for pain and suffering based upon a negligence theory of liability which is outside the scope of, and is not governed by, the CBA’s “line of duty injury” paid leave grievance provisions… . There is no need to exhaust administrative remedies when the cause of action by the plaintiff is not governed by the CBA … .

The defendants’ contention that dismissal is also warranted on the basis of collateral estoppel and res judicata is without merit … . Collateral estoppel is inapplicable, as the defendants failed to demonstrate that the issue that the plaintiff seeks to pursue here was necessarily decided by the DOE when it denied the plaintiff’s “line of duty injury” paid leave application … . Likewise, the doctrine of res judicata, or claim preclusion, also is inapplicable to the plaintiff’s complaint because the relief she seeks could not have been awarded within the context of the prior administrative proceeding … . Shortt v City of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 04745, Second Dept 6-12-19

June 12, 2019

Administrative Law, Attorneys, Education-School Law

IN THIS COLLEGE DISCIPLINARY ACTION, THE COLLEGE’S REFUSAL OF THE STUDENT’S REQUEST FOR A THREE-HOUR ADJOURNMENT TO ALLOW HIS ATTORNEY TO ATTEND WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION, NEW HEARING ORDERED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division in this college disciplinary action, determined the student’s request for a three-hour adjournment to allow his attorney to attend should have been granted. The link to the reversed 2nd Department decision is here:

… [T]he petition insofar as it sought to annul respondents’ disciplinary determination [is] granted and the matter remitted to the Appellate Division with directions remand to respondents for a new disciplinary hearing. Petitioner, a student enrolled at respondent Purchase College of the State University of New York, was accused of multiple disciplinary violations including sexual assault of another student. Petitioner requested a three-hour adjournment of his scheduled administrative hearing so that his attorney could attend the proceeding. Respondents denied this request. Under the particular circumstances of this case, we find respondents abused their discretion as a matter of law by failing to grant the requested adjournment … . Matter of Bursch v Purchase Coll. of the State Univ. of N.Y., 2019 NY Slip Op 04449, CtApp 6-6-19

June 6, 2019

Administrative Law, Civil Procedure, Land Use, Zoning

THE ARTICLE 78 PETITION SEEKING REVIEW OF THE DENIAL OF VARIANCES BY THE ZONING BOARD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THE GROUND THAT PETITIONER DID NOT PROVIDE A TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROCEEDINGS, UNDER THE CPLR THE RESPONDENT MUST PROVIDE THE TRANSCRIPT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the petition seeking review of the zoning board’s denial of variances should not have been dismissed on the ground that petitioner did not provide a transcript of the proceedings. CPLR 7804 requires that the respondent provide the transcript:

The Supreme Court denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding on the grounds that the petitioner had not provided “a copy of a transcript from the proceeding, . . . any of the submissions that he may have made in support of the requests, including the applications for any variances themselves” and had “also not provided an affidavit from a person with knowledge in support of [his] petition.”

CPLR 7804(d) permits, but does not require, the petitioner to submit affidavits or other written proof in support of the verified petition. Further, CPLR 7804(e) provides that the respondent, not the petitioner, “shall file with the answer a certified transcript of the record of the proceedings under consideration, unless such a transcript has already been filed with the clerk of the court.” Matter of D’Souza v Board of Appeals of the Town of Hempstead, 2019 NY Slip Op 04381, Second Dept 6-5-10

June 5, 2019

Administrative Law, Criminal Law

PAROLE BOARD DID NOT CONSIDER PETITIONER’S YOUTH AT THE TIME OF THE OFFENSES AND APPEARS TO HAVE DENIED PETITIONER’S APPLICATION FOR RELEASE ON PAROLE SOLELY BASED ON THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE OFFENSES, DE NOVO INTERVIEW IN FRONT OF A DIFFERENT PANEL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the parole board did not support the denial of petitioner’s application for release on parole with detailed reasons as required by Executive Law 259-i[2][a][i]. Petitioner was a juvenile at the time of the murders during a robbery attempt. He has been incarcerated for 36 years. He earned college degrees and assumed an leadership role in helping inmates. The Second Department concluded the parole board focused on the nature of the offenses and did not take petitioner’s youth at the time of the offenses, or his accomplishments, into consideration:

“[A] juvenile homicide offender . . . has a substantive constitutional right not to be punished with life imprisonment for a crime reflect[ing] transient immaturity'”… . “[T]he foundational principle’ of the Eighth Amendment jurisprudence regarding punishment for juveniles is that [the] imposition of a [s]tate’s most severe penalties on juvenile offenders cannot proceed as though they were not children'” … . “A parole board is no more entitled to subject an offender to the penalty of life in prison in contravention of this rule than is a legislature or a sentencing court”… . Consequently, “[f]or those persons convicted of crimes committed as juveniles who, but for a favorable parole determination will be punished by life in prison, the [Parole] Board must consider youth and its attendant characteristics in relationship to the commission of the crime at issue” … . …

Neither the transcript of the September 2016 interview nor the Parole Board’s September 2016 determination shows that the Parole Board considered the petitioner’s youth at the time and “its attendant characteristics” in relationship to the crimes he committed. Instead, the record reflects that the Parole Board did not factor in the petitioner’s age at the time and the impact that his age had on his decisions and actions during the commission of these crimes when it decided to deny him parole release based on “the serious nature of the instant offenses.” Matter of Rivera v Stanford, 2019 NY Slip Op 03601, Second Dept 5-8-19

May 8, 2019

Administrative Law, Consumer Law, Environmental Law, Utilities

THE PUBLIC SERVICES COMMISSION HAS THE AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE RATE CAPS AND OTHER RESTRICTIONS ON ENERGY SERVICE COMPANIES WHICH USE THE PUBLIC UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE TO DELIVER ELECTRICITY TO CONSUMERS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, determined the Public Service Commission (PSC) has the authority to impose rate caps on energy service companies (ESCOs) who use the public utility infrastructure:

… [W]e are asked to determine whether the Public Service Law authorizes the Public Service Commission (PSC) to issue an order that conditions access to public utility infrastructure by energy service companies (ESCOs) upon ESCOs capping their prices such that, on an annual basis, they charge no more for electricity than is charged by public utilities unless 30% of the energy is derived from renewable sources. We conclude that the Public Service Law, in authorizing the PSC to set the conditions under which public utilities will transport consumer-owned electricity and gas, has such authority. * * *

Because the PSC is empowered to regulate utilities’ transportation of gas and electricity and created the ESCO markets for the benefit of consumers, and because the legislature has delegated to the PSC the authority to condition ESCOs’ eligibility to access utility lines on such terms and conditions that the PSC determines to be just and reasonable, it follows that the PSC has authority to prohibit utilities from distributing overpriced products by conditioning ESCOs’ access on a price cap. That is, the statutory framework permits the PSC, pursuant to its authority to regulate the energy market, to impose a price cap on ESCOs as a condition of eligibility. Therefore, although the PSC has no direct rate-making authority over ESCOs, it did not exceed its statutory authority in determining that public utility transportation of energy sold by ESCOs is not “just and reasonable” if ESCOs are charging consumers more than that charged by public utilities. Matter of National Energy Marketers Assn. v New York State Pub. Serv. Commn., 2019 NY Slip Op 03655, CtApp 5-9-19

May 7, 2019

Administrative Law, Contempt, Criminal Law

FINDING OF CIVIL CONTEMPT AGAINST THE CHAIR OF THE NYS PAROLE BOARD WAS WARRANTED, ALTHOUGH ORDERED TO CONDUCT A DE NOVO HEARING ON PETITIONER-INMATE’S APPLICATION FOR RELEASE ON PAROLE, THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTED THE CONCLUSION THAT THE BOARD DENIED PAROLE BASED ON THE SEVERITY OF THE OFFENSE ALONE, WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE STRONG FACTORS WHICH FAVORED RELEASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Leventhal, determined that the Chair of the NYS Parole Board was properly held in contempt for failing to comply with an order granting petitioner, in inmate who had served 40 years in prison for murdering a police office, a de novo hearing on his application for parole release. The court noted that this is the first time a court had held a parole board chair in contempt. The court found that the Board based its denial of parole solely on the severity of the offense, and did not consider the strong factors favoring release, in violation of the order:

Here, under the unique facts of this particular case, we agree with the Supreme Court’s exercise of its discretion in granting the petitioner’s motion to hold the appellant … in civil contempt for the Board’s failure to comply with the Supreme Court’s judgment dated October 2, 2015. In the judgment dated October 2, 2015, the Supreme Court, after concluding, among other things, that the Board’s determination to deny parole release was not supported by an application of the factual record to the statutory factors set forth in Executive Law § 259-i, that the Board’s determination was based exclusively on the severity of the petitioner’s offense, and that there was no rational support in the record for the Board’s determination, remitted the matter to the Board “to make a de novo determination on petitioner’s request for parole release” to be held before a different panel of the Board.

As previously noted, the Board did not appeal from that judgment. Rather, it purported to comply with the judgment by rendering a new determination following a de novo interview before a different panel and, in its written decision and in the transcript of the interview, purported to comply with its responsibilities to consider the requisite statutory factors. However, the Supreme Court, after conducting an evidentiary hearing, decided that the Board again denied parole release exclusively on the basis of the underlying conviction without giving consideration to the statutory factors. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that a finding of civil contempt was warranted. Matter of Ferrante v Stanford, 2019 NY Slip Op 03334, Second Dept 5-1-19

May 1, 2019

Administrative Law, Criminal Law, Evidence, Vehicle and Traffic Law

POLICE OFFICER HAD REASONABLE GROUNDS TO PULL OVER PETITIONER’S CAR AFTER THE CAR CROSSED THE FOG LINE WITH A BLINKER ON AND THEN MOVED BACK INTO THE LANE, REVOCATION OF DRIVER’S LICENSE FOR FAILURE TO SUBMIT TO A CHEMICAL TEST AFFIRMED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, over a dissent, determined the stop of defendant’s car was based upon reasonable grounds to believe petitioner had violated Vehicle and Traffic Law 1128. Therefore the revocation of petitioner’s license for refusing to submit to a chemical test was affirmed:

At the administrative hearing, testimony was elicited that, while on patrol at 1:00 AM on December 22, 2013, a police officer observed petitioner’s vehicle “make an erratic movement off the right side of the road, crossing the fog line and [moving] off the shoulder [with the vehicle’s] right front tire.” Once the vehicle left the paved roadway — and with the right-hand turn signal on — the officer saw the vehicle immediately move left, returning to its original lane of travel. After observing that there was no animal or other obstruction of the roadway that would have explained the “erratic jerking action,” the police officer pulled the vehicle over. During the stop, the officer noticed that petitioner smelled of alcohol and exhibited other signs of inebriation. Petitioner admitted that he “had a few drinks” and asked the officer to give him a ride home, failing field sobriety tests and a preliminary breath test given at the scene. At the precinct, despite receiving the appropriate warnings, petitioner refused to take a chemical test, resulting in an administrative license revocation hearing. The police officer’s testimony at the hearing, articulating credible facts to support a reasonable belief that petitioner violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1128 (a) (failure to remain in lane), provided substantial evidence that he had probable cause to stop petitioner’s vehicle … . Any negative or adverse inference that was drawn from petitioner’s failure to testify at the administrative revocation hearing was permissible … . Matter of Schoonmaker v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs., 2019 NY Slip Op 02259, CtApp 3-28-19

March 28, 2019

Administrative Law, Civil Procedure, Employment Law, Labor Law

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR’S INTERPRETATION OF A WAGE ORDER WHICH ALLOWED 24-HOUR LIVE-IN HOME HEALTH CARE AIDES TO BE PAID FOR 13 HOURS WAS NOT IRRATIONAL OR UNREASONABLE, APPELLATE DIVISION REVERSED, MATTER REMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION OF OTHER GROUNDS FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over a two-judge dissent, reversing the Appellate Division, determined that the Department of Labor’s interpretation of a minimum wage order applicable to home health aides was not irrational or unreasonable. The matter was sent back for consideration of other grounds for class certification:

The common issue presented in these joint appeals is whether, pursuant to the New York State Department of Labor’s (DOL) Miscellaneous Industries and Occupations Minimum Wage Order (Wage Order), an employer must pay its home health care aide employees for each hour of a 24-hour shift. DOL has interpreted its Wage Order to require payment for at least 13 hours of a 24-hour shift if the employee is allowed a sleep break of at least 8 hours—and actually receives five hours of uninterrupted sleep—and three hours of meal break time. DOL’s interpretation of its Wage Order does not conflict with the promulgated language, nor has DOL adopted an irrational or unreasonable construction, and so the Appellate Division erred in rejecting that interpretation. Therefore, we reverse the Appellate Division orders and remit for consideration of alternative grounds for class certification for alleged violations of New York’s Labor Law, inclusive of defendants’ alleged systematic denial of wages earned and due, unaddressed by the courts below because of their erroneous rejection of DOL’s interpretation. Andryeyeva v New York Health Care, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 02258, CtApp 3-26-19

March 28, 2019

Administrative Law, Municipal Law, Public Authorities Law

RELATED PUBLIC AUTHORITIES PROPERLY REQUIRED TO FILE SEPARATE REPORTS WITH THE NYS AUTHORITIES BUDGET OFFICE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, determined that the NYS Authorities Budget Office (ABO) properly required the Madison County Industrial Development Agency (MCIDA) and the related Madison Grant Facilitation Corporation (MGFC) to file separate reports pursuant to the Public Authorities Accountability Act (PAAA) and the Pbblic Authorities Law. MCIDA had filed a single consolidated report and brought an Article 78 proceeding arguing the ABO’s determination that separate reports must be filed was arbitrary and capricious:

The ABO’s narrow record-keeping determination was not contrary to law. The Public Authorities Law plainly provides that a local development corporation such as MGFC, which is “affiliated” with a local IDA, is also a local authority subject to the PAAA and, as such, has reporting obligations (Public Authorities Law § 2 [2] [d]). Regardless of whether MGFC is also a subsidiary, it is clearly an “affiliate” of MCIDA within the meaning of the statute … . The PAAA does not contain a reporting exception for subsidiaries of local authorities, and petitioners have not identified any other statute or regulation that excused MGFC from its obligation to separately report. Matter of Madison County Indus. Dev. Agency v State of New York Auths. Budget Off., 2019 NY Slip Op 02150, CtApp 3-21-19

March 21, 2019