You are here: / Administrative Law
, , ,

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

 

, ,

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

 

, , ,

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

 

, , ,

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

 

​

, ,

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

 

, ,

REGULATIONS PROMULGATED BY THE OFFICE OF VICTIM SERVICES WHICH LIMITED THE AVAILABILITY OF ATTORNEY’S FEES IN THE EARLY STAGES OF A CLAIM CONFLICT WITH THE CONTROLLING STATUTE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Garry, determined that certain changes made by the Office of Victim Services (OVS) to regulations affecting the availability of attorney’s fees in early stages of a claim conflicted with the controlling statute:

Executive Law § 626 (1) requires OVS to reimburse crime victims for out-of-pocket loss, which “shall . . . include . . . the cost of reasonable attorneys’ fees for representation before [OVS] and/or before the [A]ppellate [D]ivision upon judicial review” … . Our primary purpose in interpreting this provision “is to discern the will of the Legislature and, as the clearest indicator of legislative intent is the statutory text, the starting point in any case of interpretation must always be the language itself, giving effect to the plain meaning thereof” … . Applying these principles, we find no authorization in the statute’s plain language for OVS to conclude that counsel fees are never”reasonable” during the early stages of a claim and, thus, to categorically exclude awards of counsel fees for such representation in every instance. Neither this statutory language nor the similar language of Executive Law § 623 (3) — that authorizes OVS to promulgate regulations for the approval of counsel fees “for representation before [OVS] and/or before the [A]ppellate [D]ivision” — distinguishes among the stages of a victim’s representation before OVS, nor does the statutory text suggest that OVS may do so. Matter of Juarez v New York State Off. of Victim Servs., 2019 NY Slip Op 00653, Third Dept 1-31-19

 

, ,

NEGLIGENCE AND NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT BROUGHT BY A STUDENT WITH SPECIAL NEEDS WHO LEFT SCHOOL AND ATTEMPTED SUICIDE ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE EXHAUSTION OF REMEDIES REQUIREMENTS OF THE INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT (IDEA) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the negligence and negligent supervision, hiring, training and retention causes of action against the school district should not have been granted. Infant plaintiff is a special needs student who had an Individualized Education Program (IEP) pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The infant plaintiff left school, went home and attempted suicide. The school district argued plaintiffs did not exhaust their administrative remedies as required by the IDEA. The Second Department held that the negligence causes of action were not subject to the administrative requirements of the IDEA:

“An IEP is developed jointly by a school official, the child’s teacher and parents, and, where appropriate, the child. It details the special needs of a disabled child and the services which are to be provided to serve the individual needs of that child” … . Because parents and school officials sometimes cannot agree on such issues, the IDEA establishes formal administrative procedures for resolving disputes… . If a parent is dissatisfied with the outcome after having exhausted the IDEA’s administrative remedies, the parent may then seek judicial review by filing a civil action in state or federal court… . The IDEA’s exhaustion requirement is not limited to actions brought explicitly pursuant to the IDEA. 20 USC § 1415(l) states: “Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to restrict or limit the rights, procedures, and remedies available under the Constitution, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, title V of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, or other Federal laws protecting the rights of children with disabilities, except that before the filing of a civil action under such laws seeking relief that is also available under this subchapter, the procedures under subsections (f) and (g) shall be exhausted to the same extent as would be required had the action been brought under this subchapter.”

Here, the complaint alleges only common-law causes of action to recover damages for, inter alia, negligence, negligent supervision, hiring, training, and retention, and loss of consortium. Thus, the plaintiffs were not required to exhaust the IDEA’s administrative remedies before commencing the instant action … . Matter of P.S. v Pleasantville Union Free Sch. Dist., 2019 NY Slip Op 00282, Second Dept 1-16-19

 

,

AFTER REVERSAL BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE EXPULSION OF PETITIONER STUDENT FOR SEXUAL MISCONDUCT IN VIOLATION OF THE COLLEGE’S STUDENT CODE CONFIRMED, COLLEGE APPEALS BOARD HAD THE POWER TO IMPOSE ANY AVAILABLE REMEDY INCLUDING EXPULSION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, after a reversal by the Court of Appeals, confirmed the college’s determination to expel petitioner, a student accused of sexual misconduct in violation of the student code:

… [T]he Court of Appeals agreed with us “that petitioner’s due process arguments were not preserved at the administrative level” … . To the extent that petitioner’s procedural claims go beyond those arguments, they are also unpreserved due to him either failing to raise them at the administrative hearing when they could have been corrected or failing to raise them altogether … . We accordingly focus upon the penalty of expulsion recommended by SUNY’s Appellate Board and imposed by respondent Kristen Esterberg, SUNY’s president.

Petitioner may not have been aware of the fact when he took an administrative appeal from a decision of the Hearing Board that suspended him for a semester, but the Appellate Board was empowered by article IX (C) of the student code of conduct to “alter the sanctions imposed” and punish him with “any of the [available] sanctions,” including more severe ones. Article IX misstates the student code of conduct sections dealing with the jurisdiction of the Appellate Board and the permissible sanctions, but a review of the pertinent provisions leaves no doubt that those misstatements were drafting errors that may be disregarded… . The Appellate Board chose one of the available remedies by recommending expulsion and, while no explanation was offered as to why it did so, the student code of conduct did not require one. Esterberg adopted the recommendation. Matter of Haug v State Univ. of N.Y. At Potsdam, 2018 NY Slip Op 08208, Third Dept 11-29-18

EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (COLLEGE DISCIPLINE, AFTER REVERSAL BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE EXPULSION OF PETITIONER STUDENT FOR SEXUAL MISCONDUCT IN VIOLATION OF THE COLLEGE’S STUDENT CODE CONFIRMED, COLLEGE APPEALS BOARD HAD THE POWER TO IMPOSE ANY AVAILABLE REMEDY INCLUDING EXPULSION (THIRD DEPT))/ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (COLLEGE DISCIPLINE, AFTER REVERSAL BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE EXPULSION OF PETITIONER STUDENT FOR SEXUAL MISCONDUCT IN VIOLATION OF THE COLLEGE’S STUDENT CODE CONFIRMED, COLLEGE APPEALS BOARD HAD THE POWER TO IMPOSE ANY AVAILABLE REMEDY INCLUDING EXPULSION (THIRD DEPT))/DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS (COLLEGES,  AFTER REVERSAL BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE EXPULSION OF PETITIONER STUDENT FOR SEXUAL MISCONDUCT IN VIOLATION OF THE COLLEGE’S STUDENT CODE CONFIRMED, COLLEGE APPEALS BOARD HAD THE POWER TO IMPOSE ANY AVAILABLE REMEDY INCLUDING EXPULSION (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY AFTER THE UNDERLYING ACTION WAS SETTLED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department determined the exception to the mootness doctrine did not apply and the Department of Health’s (DOH’s) motion to dismiss causes of action pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act should have been granted. The underlying action was brought by disabled residents of an adult-care facility which was being closed. The matter settled and the facility closed rendering further proceedings academic. Supreme Court had held that the state claims were moot, but the federal claims were viable under an exception to the mootness doctrine:

The exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply here. That exception permits a court to pass on moot issues when there exists: “(1) a likelihood of repetition, either between the parties or among other members of the public; (2) a phenomenon typically evading review; and (3) a showing of significant or important questions not previously passed on, i.e., substantial and novel issues” … . If one or more of these elements is missing, the exception does not apply… .

Here, there is no likelihood of repetition because the issues are fact-specific … . Furthermore, because the issues are fact-specific, they are not substantial and novel … .

The plaintiffs contend that their federal law causes of action are not fact-specific, in that they challenge the validity of the regulations pursuant to which the DOH approves of any closure plan for an assisted living residence … . The plaintiffs contend that the regulations themselves violate the mandate in the ADA and Rehabilitation Act that services be administered in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of the resident … . However, this facial challenge to the DOH’s closure regulations is time-barred … .

The issues presented here also do not typically evade review… . An injunction maintaining the status quo was an effective procedure here and would be in a future case raising similar issues. The issues here only became moot when the plaintiffs voluntarily opted to settle their claims against the LLC … . Berger v Prospect Park Residence, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 08110, Second Dept 11-28-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY AFTER THE UNDERLYING ACTION WAS SETTLED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/ADMINISTRATIVE LAW  (EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY AFTER THE UNDERLYING ACTION WAS SETTLED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY AFTER THE UNDERLYING ACTION WAS SETTLED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE (EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY AFTER THE UNDERLYING ACTION WAS SETTLED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT)

, , ,

DENIAL OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A GAS STATION WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT

The Second Department determined the denial of a special use permit for the construction of a gas station was not supported by substantial evidence:

The subject two-acre parcel of land, upon which is located a used auto sales dealership, an automotive repair shop, and an area for the storage of cars and boats, is located in a business district in which gasoline service stations are a permitted use with a special permit. * * *

Unlike a variance, a special permit does not entail a use of the property forbidden by the zoning ordinance but, instead, constitutes a recognition of a use which the ordinance permits under stated conditions … . Thus, the burden of proof on an applicant seeking a special permit is lighter than that required for a hardship variance… . In reviewing a town board’s determination on special permit applications, we are “limited to determining whether the action taken by the board was illegal, arbitrary, or an abuse of discretion,” and we “consider substantial evidence only to determine whether the record contains sufficient evidence to support the rationality of the [b]oard’s determination” … . “A denial of a special . . . permit must be supported by evidence in the record and may not be based solely upon community objection”… .

Here, the material findings of the Town Board were not supported by substantial evidence. With regard to the alleged increased volume of traffic, there was no showing that the proposed use of a gasoline service station would have a greater impact on traffic than would other uses unconditionally permitted … . While there was evidence that traffic would be increased by 3%, there was no evidence indicating that the proposed use would have any greater impact than would other permitted uses. Thus, the alleged increase in traffic volume was an improper ground for the denial of the special permit. Matter of QuickChek Corp. v Town of Islip, 2018 NY Slip Op 08136, Second Dept 11-28-18

ZONING (DENIAL OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A GAS STATION WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT))/LAND USE (DENIAL OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A GAS STATION WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT))/SPECIAL USE PERMITS (LAND USE, DENIAL OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A GAS STATION WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT))/ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (LAND USE, DENIAL OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A GAS STATION WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, LAND USE, DENIAL OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A GAS STATION WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC, INCREASED (ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, LAND USE, DENIAL OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A GAS STATION WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT))

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