Administrative Law – Page 27 – New York Appellate Digest

Administrative Law, Civil Procedure, Land Use, Zoning

PETITIONER MUST EXHAUST ITS ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES BY APPEALING THE DENIAL OF A BUILDING PERMIT BY THE TOWN BUILDING DEPARTMENT TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS BEFORE BRINGING A COURT ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner was required to exhaust its administrative remedies by appealing the town building department's ruling to the zoning board of appeals before bringing a court action. Petitioner's request for a permit to put in a convenience store in a rural use district had been denied by the building department:

… [T]he petitioner was required to exhaust its administrative remedies before commencing the instant proceeding/action. The petitioner's constitutional challenges to the Building Department's determination did not excuse the petitioner's failure to exhaust its administrative remedies through an appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals… . Furthermore, the petitioner did not establish that the Building Department's determination was “wholly beyond its grant of power” or that the pursuit of administrative remedies would cause the petitioner irreparable injury … . Matter of Vineland Commons, LLC v Building Dept. of Town of Riverhead, 2018 NY Slip Op 06748, Second Dept 10-10-18

ZONING (PETITIONER MUST EXHAUST ITS ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES BY APPEALING THE DENIAL OF A BUILDING PERMIT BY THE TOWN BUILDING DEPARTMENT TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS BEFORE BRINGING A COURT ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (ZONING, PETITIONER MUST EXHAUST ITS ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES BY APPEALING THE DENIAL OF A BUILDING PERMIT BY THE TOWN BUILDING DEPARTMENT TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS BEFORE BRINGING A COURT ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (ZONING, CIVIL PROCEDURE (ZONING, PETITIONER MUST EXHAUST ITS ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES BY APPEALING THE DENIAL OF A BUILDING PERMIT BY THE TOWN BUILDING DEPARTMENT TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS BEFORE BRINGING A COURT ACTION (SECOND DEPT))

October 10, 2018

Administrative Law, Workers' Compensation

SHOULDER INJURY WHICH OCCURRED WHEN CLAIMANT SCANNED HER PARKING PASS TO ENTER A PARKING GARAGE USED BY EMPLOYEES WAS NOT COMPENSABLE, TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a two-justice dissent, affirmed the Workers' Compensation Board's finding that claimant's shoulder injury was not compensable because it did not arise out of and in the course of her employment. Claimant's injury occurred when she scanned her parking pass to enter a parking garage. The garage was not owned by her employer, but there were spaces reserved for employees and the employer paid for parking. The majority found sufficient evidence to support the Board's ruling. But the dissenters argued this was not a case which required weighing conflicting evidence, therefore precedent allowing recovery for injuries in employee parking areas should control:

In concluding that claimant's injury was not compensable, the Board found that the parking garage was utilized by members of the public, as well as other businesses located within the same building as the employer. The Board further noted that the employer did not own or maintain the garage. These facts, which the Board credited, lead to the conclusion that the employer did not extend its premises to the area where claimant's injury occurred … . Although facts exist that would support a contrary result, given that substantial evidence supports the Board's decision, we discern no basis to disturb it … .

From the dissent: We respectfully dissent. The proper disposition of this case is not based upon our substantial evidence standard of review, as this is not a case where the Workers' Compensation Board was weighing and balancing conflicting evidence. There was no relevant conflicting evidence. The location and circumstances of the underlying event are not disputed; claimant does not challenge the factual findings, but instead addresses the appeal solely to the resulting legal determination. In this case, the Board was required to apply the policy established by precedent to the relevant undisputed facts. As the Board failed to properly apply this precedent in rendering the determination, we would reverse, based upon the law. Matter of Grover v State Ins. Fund, 2018 NY Slip Op 06601, Third Dept 10-4-18

WORKERS' COMPENSATION LAW (SHOULDER INJURY WHICH OCCURRED WHEN CLAIMANT SCANNED HER PARKING PASS TO ENTER A PARKING GARAGE USED BY EMPLOYEES WAS NOT COMPENSABLE, TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (THIRD DEPT))/ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (WORKERS' COMPENSATION LAW, (SHOULDER INJURY WHICH OCCURRED WHEN CLAIMANT SCANNED HER PARKING PASS TO ENTER A PARKING GARAGE USED BY EMPLOYEES WAS NOT COMPENSABLE, TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (THIRD DEPT))/PARKING GARAGES (WORKERS' COMPENSATION LAW, (SHOULDER INJURY WHICH OCCURRED WHEN CLAIMANT SCANNED HER PARKING PASS TO ENTER A PARKING GARAGE USED BY EMPLOYEES WAS NOT COMPENSABLE, TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (THIRD DEPT))

October 4, 2018

Administrative Law, Employment Law, Human Rights Law

NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW PROTECTS AGAINST TERMINATION BASED UPON AN EMPLOYEE’S MARRIAGE TO A PARTICULAR PERSON WHO HAD LEFT TO WORK FOR A COMPETITOR, THERE WAS NO NEED TO ALLEGE THAT THE EMPLOYER WAS BIASED AGAINST MARRIED COUPLES GENERALLY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, in a matter of first impression, determined that terminating a person the employer (Fidessa) believed was married to another employee who had left to work for a competing employer stated a cause of action for discrimination based upon marital status under the New York City Human Rights Law:

The City HRL states, in relevant part: “It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice: (a) For an employer or an employee or agent thereof, because of the actual or perceived . . . marital status . . .(2) To refuse to hire or employ or to bar or to discharge from employment such person or (3) To discriminate against such person in compensation or in terms, conditions or privileges of employment” … .

From the complaint it appears that Fidessa treated plaintiff and his partner differently from [a] similarly situated couple based on its perception that they were married to one another and the members of the other couple were not. Thus, the question is whether discrimination based on “marital status” encompasses discrimination based on marital status in relation to a person relevant to Fidessa. In other words, is an employer prohibited from discharging an employee because of the employee's marriage to a particular person.

For the purposes of this analysis, the fact that defendant was not alleged to be “biased against” married couples in all circumstances is of no moment: the factor in terminating plaintiff's employment was plaintiff's marital status in relation to the employee who left the company. Thus, plaintiff's termination was based on his marital status. Morse v Fidessa Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 05975, First Dept 9-6-18

HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION, NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW PROTECTS AGAINST TERMINATION BASED UPON AN EMPLOYEE'S MARRIAGE TO A PARTICULAR PERSON WHO HAD LEFT TO WORK FOR A COMPETITOR, THERE WAS NO NEED TO ALLEGE THAT THE EMPLOYER WAS BIASED AGAINST MARRIED COUPLES GENERALLY (FIRST DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION, NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW PROTECTS AGAINST TERMINATION BASED UPON AN EMPLOYEE'S MARRIAGE TO A PARTICULAR PERSON WHO HAD LEFT TO WORK FOR A COMPETITOR, THERE WAS NO NEED TO ALLEGE THAT THE EMPLOYER WAS BIASED AGAINST MARRIED COUPLES GENERALLY (FIRST DEPT))/ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION, NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW PROTECTS AGAINST TERMINATION BASED UPON AN EMPLOYEE'S MARRIAGE TO A PARTICULAR PERSON WHO HAD LEFT TO WORK FOR A COMPETITOR, THERE WAS NO NEED TO ALLEGE THAT THE EMPLOYER WAS BIASED AGAINST MARRIED COUPLES GENERALLY (FIRST DEPT))/MARITAL STATUS (EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION, NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW PROTECTS AGAINST TERMINATION BASED UPON AN EMPLOYEE'S MARRIAGE TO A PARTICULAR PERSON WHO HAD LEFT TO WORK FOR A COMPETITOR, THERE WAS NO NEED TO ALLEGE THAT THE EMPLOYER WAS BIASED AGAINST MARRIED COUPLES GENERALLY (FIRST DEPT))

September 6, 2018

Administrative Law, Appeals, Environmental Law

TOWN PLANNING BOARD PROPERLY RESCINDED A 1987 NEGATIVE SEQRA DECLARATION FOR A SUBDIVISION BECAUSE OF THE NEW REGULATORY LANDSCAPE, COURT’S REVIEW POWERS ARE LIMITED TO WHETHER THE BOARD SATISFIED SEQRA PROCEDURALLY AND SUBSTANTIVELY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the town planning board's rescission of a 1987 negative declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) was proper. The board found that the regulatory landscape in 2013 constituted new information or a change in circumstances justifying rescission. The court noted that its review powers are limited to whether the board's action satisfied SEQRA procedurally and substantively, and cannot include determining whether the board was “correct:”

The record supports the Planning Board's conclusion that changes in the regulatory landscape for environmental matters constituted new information or a change in circumstances … . Moreover, in determining that the project may result in significant adverse environmental impacts, the Planning Board identified specific environmental concerns relevant to the criteria for determining significance … .

The petitioners argue that the Planning Board's conclusion was incorrect. However, “it is not the role of the courts to weigh the desirability of any action or choose among alternatives, but to assure that the agency itself has satisfied SEQRA, procedurally and substantively” … . Our review is limited to “whether the agency procedures were lawful and whether the agency identified the relevant areas of environmental concern, took a hard look at them, and made a reasoned elaboration of the basis for its determination” … . Here, the Planning Board satisfied this standard. Leonard v Planning Bd. of the Town of Union Vale, 2018 NY Slip Op 05757, Second Dept 8-15-18

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (TOWN PLANNING BOARD PROPERLY RESCINDED A 1987 NEGATIVE SEQRA DECLARATION FOR A SUBDIVISION BECAUSE OF THE NEW REGULATORY LANDSCAPE, COURT'S REVIEW POWERS ARE LIMITED TO WHETHER THE BOARD SATISFIED SEQRA PROCEDURALLY AND SUBSTANTIVELY (SECOND DEPT))/STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA) (TOWN PLANNING BOARD PROPERLY RESCINDED A 1987 NEGATIVE SEQRA DECLARATION FOR A SUBDIVISION BECAUSE OF THE NEW REGULATORY LANDSCAPE, COURT'S REVIEW POWERS ARE LIMITED TO WHETHER THE BOARD SATISFIED SEQRA PROCEDURALLY AND SUBSTANTIVELY (SECOND DEPT))/ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, TOWN PLANNING BOARD PROPERLY RESCINDED A 1987 NEGATIVE SEQRA DECLARATION FOR A SUBDIVISION BECAUSE OF THE NEW REGULATORY LANDSCAPE, COURT'S REVIEW POWERS ARE LIMITED TO WHETHER THE BOARD SATISFIED SEQRA PROCEDURALLY AND SUBSTANTIVELY (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, TOWN PLANNING BOARD PROPERLY RESCINDED A 1987 NEGATIVE SEQRA DECLARATION FOR A SUBDIVISION BECAUSE OF THE NEW REGULATORY LANDSCAPE, COURT'S REVIEW POWERS ARE LIMITED TO WHETHER THE BOARD SATISFIED SEQRA PROCEDURALLY AND SUBSTANTIVELY (SECOND DEPT))

August 15, 2018

Administrative Law, Judges, Landlord-Tenant, Municipal Law

OWNER PROPERLY FOUND RESPONSIBLE FOR REFUNDING OVERCHARGES COLLECTED BY THE PRIME TENANT WHICH HAD CREATED AN ILLUSORY TENANCY TO CIRCUMVENT THE NYC RENT STABILIZATION LAW (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Singh, determined that the NYC Department of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) had the authority to sua sponte vacate a nonfinal order under the Rent Stabilization Code and DHCR correctly found that petitioner 333 East 49th Partnership, LP (the owner) was responsible for refunding the overcharge collected by the prime tenant, on the grounds that the prime tenant created an illusory tenancy. The opinion is complex and comprehensive and cannot be fairly summarized here:

Section 2529.9 of the Rent Stabilization Code * * * authorizes DHCR to reopen, sua sponte, a proceeding at any time upon a finding of irregularity of vital matters, fraud or illegality, upon notice to the parties … . * * *

The rent stabilization laws [RSL] are designed “to prevent exactions of unjust, unreasonable and oppressive rents and rental agreements and to forestall profiteering, speculation and other disruptive practices … . The Rent Stabilization Code expressly provides that the legal regulated rents and other requirements “shall not be evaded, either directly or indirectly, in connection with the renting or leasing or the transfer of a lease for housing accommodations” … .

An illusory tenancy exists when the prime tenant rents an apartment for the sole purpose of re-leasing it, at a profit, or otherwise subverts the protections of the RSL … .

DHCR’s finding that the owner may be held accountable for the overcharge is not irrational or arbitrary and capricious. DHCR is not restricted, as the owner argues, to only take into account whether the owner overcharged the subtenant and actually collected rent in excess of the lawful stabilized rent. Rather, DHCR may consider that the owner “derived substantial benefits from the scheme and was aware of the nature of [the prime tenant’s] activities” … . * * *

Rent Stabilization Code 2526.1(a)(1) imposes treble damages upon owners who “have collected any rent . . . in excess of the legal regulated rent” … . However, as noted above, RSL 26-511(c)(12)(e) merely states that “where a tenant violates the provisions of subparagraph (a)” with regard to overcharging a subtenant, “the subtenant shall be entitled to damages of three times the overcharge” … . DHCR’s interpretation of these statutes to impose treble damages upon the owner, under these circumstances, is rational and thus, entitled to deference … . Matter of 333 E. 49th Partnership, LP v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 2018 NY Slip Op 05735, First Dept 8-9-18

LANDLORD-TENANT (RENT STABILIZATION LAW, OWNER PROPERLY FOUND RESPONSIBLE FOR REFUNDING OVERCHARGES COLLECTED BY THE PRIME TENANT WHICH HAD CREATED AN ILLUSORY TENANCY TO CIRCUMVENT THE RENT STABILIZATION LAW (FIRST DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (NYC, RENT STABILIZATION LAW, OWNER PROPERLY FOUND RESPONSIBLE FOR REFUNDING OVERCHARGES COLLECTED BY THE PRIME TENANT WHICH HAD CREATED AN ILLUSORY TENANCY TO CIRCUMVENT THE RENT STABILIZATION LAW (FIRST DEPT))/RENT STABILIZATION LAW (NYC, OWNER PROPERLY FOUND RESPONSIBLE FOR REFUNDING OVERCHARGES COLLECTED BY THE PRIME TENANT WHICH HAD CREATED AN ILLUSORY TENANCY TO CIRCUMVENT THE RENT STABILIZATION LAW (FIRST DEPT))/ILLUSORY TENANT (RENT STABILIZATION LAW, OWNER PROPERLY FOUND RESPONSIBLE FOR REFUNDING OVERCHARGES COLLECTED BY THE PRIME TENANT WHICH HAD CREATED AN ILLUSORY TENANCY TO CIRCUMVENT THE RENT STABILIZATION LAW (FIRST DEPT))

August 9, 2018

Administrative Law, Court of Claims, Criminal Law

NO PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE OF A GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION AGAINST THE BOARD OF PAROLE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the claimant, an inmate, did not have a private right of action for negligent performance of a governmental function against the Board of Parole. Claimant alleged the board did not comply with the Executive Law by promulgating certain written procedures for assessing an inmate’s eligibility for parole:

Inasmuch as Executive Law article 12-B, which sets forth the procedures governing parole, does not expressly authorize a private right of action for claimant to recover civil damages for a violation of its provisions, recovery may only be obtained if a private right of action may be implied … . “One may be fairly implied when (1) [claimant] is one of the class for whose particular benefit the statute was enacted; (2) recognition of a private right of action would promote the legislative purpose of the governing statute; and (3) to do so would be consistent with the legislative scheme” … . “If one of these prerequisites is lacking, the claim will fail” … .

We agree with the Court of Claims that a private action may not be fairly implied here. The Legislature provides recourse under CPLR article 78 for inmates to address perceived instances where the Board did not satisfy its statutory obligations in making parole release determinations… . As the Legislature has established procedures for review of parole release decisions, “it is fair to infer that had it intended to create a private right of action . . ., it would have specifically done so” … . Accordingly, permitting a private action here would be inconsistent with the legislative scheme … . Franza v State of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 05641, Third Dept 8-2-18

CRIMINAL LAW NO PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE OF A GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION AGAINST THE BOARD OF PAROLE (THIRD DEPT))/ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (CRIMINAL LAW, PAROLE, NO PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE OF A GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION AGAINST THE BOARD OF PAROLE (THIRD DEPT))/COURT OF CLAIMS (PAROLE, NO PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE OF A GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION AGAINST THE BOARD OF PAROLE (THIRD DEPT))/PAROLE (NO PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE OF A GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION AGAINST THE BOARD OF PAROLE (THIRD DEPT))/NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE OF A GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION NO PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE OF A GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION AGAINST THE BOARD OF PAROLE (THIRD DEPT))

August 2, 2018

Administrative Law, Education-School Law

STUDENT PROPERLY DISMISSED FROM A STATE UNIVERSITY FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE STUDENT CODE OF CONDUCT, PROCEDURES AND PROOF REQUIREMENTS EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department affirmed the dismissal of a student from the State University of New York for violations of the student code of conduct. The decision is too detailed to fairly summarize here, but it provides a comprehensive explanation of the procedures and proof required of a state university in a disciplinary action against a student:

Although administrative determinations may be based entirely on hearsay evidence as long as “such evidence is sufficiently relevant and probative or sufficiently reliable and is not otherwise seriously controverted”… , the record contains direct evidence against petitioner, as well as hearsay. * * *

Generally, due process requires that the accused student in a college disciplinary proceeding be given written notice of the charges prior to a hearing, the names of the witnesses against him or her, an opportunity to hear and confront evidence against him or her and to present a defense and to be advised in writing of the factual findings and discipline imposed… . However, “there is no general constitutional right to discovery in . . . administrative proceedings” … . …

The code does not contain a requirement that a party provide any documents or information that the party does not intend to submit as evidence at the hearing. It is undisputed that the investigator complied with the code’s directive by timely providing to the Community Standards Office the names of his proposed witnesses and the evidence he later presented at the hearing, which were provided to petitioner well in advance of the hearing. * * *

Pursuant to the code, to obtain relief on an administrative appeal based on new evidence, the student must not only show that the evidence was unavailable at the time of the hearing, but must also provide “[a] summary of the new evidence and its potential impact.” …

… [A] student has no right to counsel in disciplinary proceedings … . The code permits a student to have an advisor, but that person may only advise the student and cannot address the Student Conduct Board during the hearing. Matter of Agudio v State Univ. of N.Y., 2018 NY Slip Op 05647, Third Dept 8-2-18

EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (STUDENT PROPERLY DISMISSED FROM A STATE UNIVERSITY FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE STUDENT CODE OF CONDUCT, PROCEDURES AND PROOF REQUIREMENTS EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT))/ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, STUDENT PROPERLY DISMISSED FROM A STATE UNIVERSITY FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE STUDENT CODE OF CONDUCT, PROCEDURES AND PROOF REQUIREMENTS EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT))/COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES (STUDENT PROPERLY DISMISSED FROM A STATE UNIVERSITY FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE STUDENT CODE OF CONDUCT, PROCEDURES AND PROOF REQUIREMENTS EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT))/DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS (COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES, STUDENT PROPERLY DISMISSED FROM A STATE UNIVERSITY FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE STUDENT CODE OF CONDUCT, PROCEDURES AND PROOF REQUIREMENTS EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT))/STUDENTS (COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES, STUDENT PROPERLY DISMISSED FROM A STATE UNIVERSITY FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE STUDENT CODE OF CONDUCT, PROCEDURES AND PROOF REQUIREMENTS EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT))

August 2, 2018

Administrative Law, Civil Procedure, Zoning

THE COURT REVERSED THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS BECAUSE THE BOARD FAILED TO FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE MANDATED BY THE TOWN CODE WHEN IT GRANTED AREA VARIANCES, THE COURT ALSO NOTED THAT A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT IS NOT AN AVAILABLE REMEDY FOR CHALLENGING AN ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION (FOURTH DEPT)

The Fourth Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined the zoning board of appeals (ZBA) did not follow town code procedure when it refused to consider the review and comments submitted by the planning board in connection with area variances of lot-width requirements for a proposed subdivision. The court also noted that a declaratory judgment is not an available remedy for challenging an administrative determination:

The Town’s Zoning Code (Code) provides that “[t]he [ZBA] shall refer applications for variance requests to the Planning Board for review and comments. The Planning Board shall forward comments within 30 days of the close of a public hearing of the [ZBA]” … . Here, the Planning Board conducted a meeting on June 20, 2016, and voted to approve the relevant variances. On June 27, 2016, the ZBA held a public hearing and postponed its decision on the variance application until certain residents could comment at an upcoming July 18, 2016 Planning Board meeting. At the July 18, 2016 Planning Board meeting, various residents opposed the variances, and the Planning Board reversed its initial June 20, 2016 determination and voted not to approve the area variances. Thereafter, the ZBA determined that the Planning Board did not have the authority to reverse its prior determination and that the July 18, 2016 vote was null and void. The ZBA met on August 22, 2016 and voted to approve the area variances without considering the Planning Board’s July 18, 2016 review and comments.

” It is well established that [c]ourts may set aside a zoning board determination only where the record reveals that the board acted illegally or arbitrarily, or abused its discretion, or that it merely succumbed to generalized community pressure’ ” … . Here, inasmuch as no ZBA public hearing took place until June 27, 2016, the June 20, 2016 action on the variance application by the Planning Board was procedurally improper … . The ZBA’s refusal to consider the procedurally compliant July 18, 2016 review and comments submitted by the Planning Board therefore violated the procedure set forth in section 302 (G) of the Code. We thus conclude that the ZBA’s grant of the area variances was “made in violation of lawful procedure [and] was affected by an error of law” (CPLR 7803 [3]). Matter of Schulz v Town of Hopewell Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 2018 NY Slip Op 05418, Fourth Dept 7-25-18

ZONING (THE COURT REVERSED THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS BECAUSE THE BOARD FAILED TO FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE MANDATED BY THE TOWN CODE WHEN IT GRANTED AREA VARIANCES, THE COURT ALSO NOTED THAT A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT IS NOT AN AVAILABLE REMEDY FOR CHALLENGING AN ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION (FOURTH DEPT))/ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (ZONING, THE COURT REVERSED THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS BECAUSE THE BOARD FAILED TO FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE MANDATED BY THE TOWN CODE WHEN IT GRANTED AREA VARIANCES, THE COURT ALSO NOTED THAT A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT IS NOT AN AVAILABLE REMEDY FOR CHALLENGING AN ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION (FOURTH DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (ZONING, THE COURT REVERSED THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS BECAUSE THE BOARD FAILED TO FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE MANDATED BY THE TOWN CODE WHEN IT GRANTED AREA VARIANCES, THE COURT ALSO NOTED THAT A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT IS NOT AN AVAILABLE REMEDY FOR CHALLENGING AN ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION (FOURTH DEPT))/VARIANCES (ZONING, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, THE COURT REVERSED THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS BECAUSE THE BOARD FAILED TO FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE MANDATED BY THE TOWN CODE WHEN IT GRANTED AREA VARIANCES, THE COURT ALSO NOTED THAT A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT IS NOT AN AVAILABLE REMEDY FOR CHALLENGING AN ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION (FOURTH DEPT))

July 25, 2018

Administrative Law, Corporation Law, Municipal Law

ALTHOUGH PETITIONER-ATTORNEY FORMED THE CORPORATIONS WHICH OWNED THE BUILDINGS ON WHICH HE POSTED SIGNS ADVERTISING HIS LAW PRACTICE, THE ADVERTISING VIOLATED THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Tom, over a two-justice dissenting opinion, determined that petitioner (Ciafone), an attorney, who used several buildings owned by his corporate entities for exterior signs promoting his law practice, engaged in unauthorized outdoor advertising and was properly penalized. Ciafone argued that the corporate entitles formed by him which owned the buildings were not “others” within the meaning of the NYC Administrative Code provision which defined an outdoor advertising company as an entity which makes advertising space available to “others:”

Administrative Code § 28-502.1 states that an OAC [outdoor advertising company] is “[a] person, corporation, partnership or other business entity that as a part of the regular conduct of its business engages in or, by way of advertising, promotions or other methods, holds itself out as engaging in the outdoor advertising business.” An Outdoor Advertising Business is “[t]he business of selling, leasing, marketing, managing, or otherwise either directly or indirectly making space on signs situated on buildings and premises within the city of New York available to others for advertising purposes, whether such advertising directs attention to a business, profession, commodity, service or entertainment conducted, sold, or offered on the same or a different zoning lot . . . .” … .

… [P]etitioners, which are corporations, made space on signs available to Ciafone’s law practice (a professional corporation), a separate and distinct entity. Of course, it is fundamental that individuals, corporations, and partnerships are each recognized as separate legal entities, and in this statutory context constitute “others” regardless of the common principal ownership or connection between the entities. Indeed, “[a]s a general rule, the law treats corporations as having an existence separate and distinct from that of their shareholders”… . …

ECB [New York City Environmental Control Board] rationally rejected petitioners’ argument that they had not made the signs available to “others.” The record shows that the building owners are not Ciafone or Ciafone P.C, but separate corporate entities, and that the advertising signs promoted legal services by Ciafone, not any services of the corporate entities that own the buildings. Contrary to petitioners’ argument, there is no basis for overturning ECB’s determination that, in these circumstances, the advertising space was made available “to others.” Nor is ECB’s interpretation of the statutory language arbitrary or irrational. Matter of Franklin St. Realty Corp. v NYC Envtl. Control Bd., 2018 NY Slip Op 05407, First Dept 7-19-18

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (MUNICIPAL LAW, ALTHOUGH PETITIONER-ATTORNEY FORMED THE CORPORATIONS WHICH OWNED THE BUILDINGS ON WHICH HE POSTED SIGNS ADVERTISING HIS LAW PRACTICE, THE ADVERTISING VIOLATED THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE (FIRST DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (NYC, ALTHOUGH PETITIONER-ATTORNEY FORMED THE CORPORATIONS WHICH OWNED THE BUILDINGS ON WHICH HE POSTED SIGNS ADVERTISING HIS LAW PRACTICE, THE ADVERTISING VIOLATED THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE (FIRST DEPT))/CORPORATION LAW (MUNICIPAL LAW, ALTHOUGH PETITIONER-ATTORNEY FORMED THE CORPORATIONS WHICH OWNED THE BUILDINGS ON WHICH HE POSTED SIGNS ADVERTISING HIS LAW PRACTICE, THE ADVERTISING VIOLATED THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE (FIRST DEPT))/ADVERTISING (SIGNS, MUNICIPAL LAW, ALTHOUGH PETITIONER-ATTORNEY FORMED THE CORPORATIONS WHICH OWNED THE BUILDINGS ON WHICH HE POSTED SIGNS ADVERTISING HIS LAW PRACTICE, THE ADVERTISING VIOLATED THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE (FIRST DEPT))

July 19, 2018

Administrative Law, Education-School Law, Evidence

DETERMINATION PETITIONER VIOLATED THE COLLEGE’S SEXUAL ASSAULT POLICY AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE USED BY THE COLLEGE DEEMED PROPER (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the petitioner was properly disciplined for violation of a college’s sexual assault policy and the procedure followed by the college was proper:

“Where, as here, no hearing is required by law, a court reviewing a private university’s disciplinary determination must determine ‘whether the university substantially adhered to its own published rules and guidelines for disciplinary proceedings so as to ascertain whether its actions were arbitrary or capricious'” … . A university’s determination will be annulled only where it has failed to substantially comply with its procedures or where its determination lacks a rational basis … . …

With respect to hearing submissions, respondent’s procedure permits each party to submit proposed questions or topics for individuals who might testify during the hearing. The procedure specifically grants the chair of the Hearing Panel discretion to “determine which of the parties’ requested questions will be asked or topics covered,” and permits the chair to disregard questions that are irrelevant, prohibited by applicable procedures or law, unduly prejudicial or cumulative. While the Hearing Panel declined to ask the complainant all of the questions that petitioner proposed prior to the hearing, many of the topics of such questions were addressed elsewhere in the record and were thus available for the Hearing Panel’s review. Moreover, as Supreme Court correctly pointed out, the right of confrontation or cross-examination is not directed or guaranteed under respondent’s procedures, nor is it required by the Enough is Enough Law … . Indeed, “[a] student subject to disciplinary action at a private educational institution is not entitled to the full panoply of due process rights,” and “[s]uch an institution need only ensure that its published rules are substantially observed” … . Matter of Doe v Cornell Univ., 2018 NY Slip Op 05255, Third Dept 7-12-18

EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (DETERMINATION PETITIONER VIOLATED THE COLLEGE’S SEXUAL ASSAULT POLICY AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE USED BY THE COLLEGE DEEMED PROPER (THIRD DEPT))/ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, DETERMINATION PETITIONER VIOLATED THE COLLEGE’S SEXUAL ASSAULT POLICY AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE USED BY THE COLLEGE DEEMED PROPER (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS, SEXUAL ASSAULT, DETERMINATION PETITIONER VIOLATED THE COLLEGE’S SEXUAL ASSAULT POLICY AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE USED BY THE COLLEGE DEEMED PROPER (THIRD DEPT))/SEXUAL ASSAULT (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS, SEXUAL ASSAULT, DETERMINATION PETITIONER VIOLATED THE COLLEGE’S SEXUAL ASSAULT POLICY AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE USED BY THE COLLEGE DEEMED PROPER (THIRD DEPT))

July 12, 2018