You are here: / Administrative Law
,

FACTS WHICH LED TO A PROCEEDING THAT WAS ULTIMATELY SEALED AND HEARSAY ARE ADMISSIBLE AT ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS, THE NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY DID NOT VIOLATE PETITIONER’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS IN THIS DRUG ACTIVITY-DELINQUENT RENT ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, noted that an administrative tribunal can consider the facts which led up to a record which is sealed and hearsay can be considered at an administrative hearing. The matter which was before the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) concerned drug activity at an apartment and rent delinquency. Supreme Court had held that petitioner’s due process rights were violated (reversed by the First Department):

… [T]he IAS court erred in rejecting the arresting officer’s testimony because the underlying criminal proceeding against petitioner had been dismissed and sealed. The sealing of a criminal case will not immunize a defendant against all future consequences of the charges, and an administrative tribunal is permitted to consider evidence of the facts leading to those charges when they are independent of the sealed records… . The IAS court’s finding that the officer’s testimony was improperly based on sealed records, rather than his independent recollection, was simply not accurate. Regardless, the “reception of erroneously unsealed evidence at [an administrative] hearing does not, without more, require annulment of respondent’s determination” … .

The IAS court also improperly rejected the officer’s testimony as impermissible hearsay. It is well-settled that hearsay is admissible in administrative proceedings, that it may be the basis for an administrative determination and — if sufficiently relevant and probative — may constitute substantial evidence alone … . Petitioner did not suffer any due process violation at the hands of NYCHA. Matter of Rosa v New York City Hous. Auth., Straus Houses, 2018 NY Slip Op 02552, First Dept 4-12-18

​ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (FACTS WHICH LED TO A PROCEEDING THAT WAS ULTIMATELY SEALED AND HEARSAY ARE ADMISSIBLE AT ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS, THE NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY DID NOT VIOLATE PETITIONER’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS IN THIS DRUG ACTIVITY-DELINQUENT RENT ACTION (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, SEALED RECORDS, HEARSAY, FACTS WHICH LED TO A PROCEEDING THAT WAS ULTIMATELY SEALED AND HEARSAY ARE ADMISSIBLE AT ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS, THE NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY DID NOT VIOLATE PETITIONER’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS IN THIS DRUG ACTIVITY-DELINQUENT RENT ACTION (FIRST DEPT))/SEALED RECORDS (ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, FACTS WHICH LED TO A PROCEEDING THAT WAS ULTIMATELY SEALED AND HEARSAY ARE ADMISSIBLE AT ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS, THE NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY DID NOT VIOLATE PETITIONER’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS IN THIS DRUG ACTIVITY-DELINQUENT RENT ACTION (FIRST DEPT))/HEARSAY (ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, FACTS WHICH LED TO A PROCEEDING THAT WAS ULTIMATELY SEALED AND HEARSAY ARE ADMISSIBLE AT ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS, THE NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY DID NOT VIOLATE PETITIONER’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS IN THIS DRUG ACTIVITY-DELINQUENT RENT ACTION (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

APPLYING THE CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENTIARY STANDARD, THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES’ (DMV’S) SUSPENSION OF PETITIONER BUS DRIVER’S LICENSE BASED UPON STRIKING A PEDESTRIAN WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE OF THE EXTENT OF THE INJURY OR ANY CONNECTION BETWEEN THE INJURY AND THE PEDESTRIAN’S DEATH A MONTH LATER, DETERMINATION ANNULLED AND LICENSE REINSTATED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, annulling the determination of the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), over a two-justice dissenting opinion, determined the record did not support the suspension of petitioner-bus-driver’s license for a violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law 1146. The court noted that the standard of proof in the DMV hearing is “clear and convincing” and the standard of proof in the instant Article 78 proceeding is “substantial evidence.” Effectively, therefore, the “clear and convincing” standard applies to the Article 78. Here, on a dark and rainy night, an 88-year-old pedestrian apparently came into contact with the bus in the crosswalk when the bus was turning. The man died a month later. In the opinion of the majority, the hearing evidence did not demonstrate how seriously the man was injured by the bus, or a connection between any injury and the man’s death a month later:

Here, DMV was required to establish that petitioner violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1146(c)(1), which imposes liability on “[a] driver of a motor vehicle who causes serious physical injury as defined in article ten of the penal law to a pedestrian or bicyclist while failing to exercise due care.” The referenced definition of “serious physical injury” includes “physical injury . . . which causes death,” … which is presumably the basis for the charge against petitioner since he was not issued a summons until after the pedestrian died in the hospital. Thus, DMV was required to present clear and convincing evidence of both failure to exercise care and that such failure led to the pedestrian’s demise. * * *

To be sure, one could speculate, as does the dissent, that the pedestrian suffered a “serious physical injury.” But to engage in speculation would be to ignore the underlying standard of clear and convincing evidence, which even the dissent agrees applied in the administrative proceeding and is relevant to our review. “Clear and convincing evidence is evidence that satisfies the factfinder that it is highly probable that what is claimed actually happened . . . and it is evidence that is neither equivocal nor open to opposing presumptions”… . Given that standard, and the remarkable lack of compelling evidence before us, we would be abdicating our role were we simply to defer to the conclusions drawn by the Administrative Law Judge, and raising a serious question as to the very purpose of having any appellate review in this matter. Matter of Seon v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs., 2018 NY Slip Op 02240, First Dept 3-29-18

 

, ,

FINDING THAT PETITIONER HAD NONCONSENSUAL SEX WITH ANOTHER COLLEGE STUDENT NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, DETERMINATION ANNULLED AND RECORD EXPUNGED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, annulling the respondent-college’s determination and expunging the petitioner-student’s record, determined the finding that the petitioner had nonconsensual sex with another student was not supported by substantial evidence:

Respondent sanctioned petitioner by placing him on persona non grata status, barring him from the college campus, and making a notation of a disciplinary violation on petitioner’s academic transcript. This Court may review whether “the determination made as a result of a hearing held, and at which evidence was taken, pursuant to direction by law is, on the entire record, supported by substantial evidence” … . “Substantial evidence” is defined as “such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact”… . We conclude that respondent’s determination that the complainant lacked the ability to consent because of her incapacitation is not supported by substantial evidence. The complainant’s testimony at the disciplinary hearing contradicted her version with respect to the sequence of events made in her statement to the Buffalo Police Department, which statement was the most contemporaneous to the incident. Moreover, the affidavit and testimony of the witness who was with the complainant the morning following the incident was consistent with the complainant’s earlier version of the sequence of events, which establishes that she could not have been incapacitated at the time of the incident. Thus, considering the record as a whole, respondent’s determination is not supported by substantial evidence and must be annulled … . Matter of West v State Univ. of N.Y. at Buffalo, 2018 NY Slip Op 01839, Fourth Dept 3-16-18

EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (FINDING THAT PETITIONER HAD NONCONSENSUAL SEX WITH ANOTHER COLLEGE STUDENT NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, DETERMINATION ANNULLED AND RECORD EXPUNGED (FOURTH DEPT))/COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES (FINDING THAT PETITIONER HAD NONCONSENSUAL SEX WITH ANOTHER COLLEGE STUDENT NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, DETERMINATION ANNULLED AND RECORD EXPUNGED (FOURTH DEPT))/SEXUAL MISCONDUCT (COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES, FINDING THAT PETITIONER HAD NONCONSENSUAL SEX WITH ANOTHER COLLEGE STUDENT NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, DETERMINATION ANNULLED AND RECORD EXPUNGED (FOURTH DEPT))/DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS (COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES) (FINDING THAT PETITIONER HAD NONCONSENSUAL SEX WITH ANOTHER COLLEGE STUDENT NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, DETERMINATION ANNULLED AND RECORD EXPUNGED (FOURTH DEPT))/ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES, FINDING THAT PETITIONER HAD NONCONSENSUAL SEX WITH ANOTHER COLLEGE STUDENT NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, DETERMINATION ANNULLED AND RECORD EXPUNGED (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES, FINDING THAT PETITIONER HAD NONCONSENSUAL SEX WITH ANOTHER COLLEGE STUDENT NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, DETERMINATION ANNULLED AND RECORD EXPUNGED (FOURTH DEPT))

,

FORMER COMMISSIONER OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REVISIT A PRIOR FINDING THAT A ROAD WITHIN THE ADIRONDACK PARK HAD NOT BEEN ABANDONED AND THEREFORE COULD BE USED BY SNOWMOBILERS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mulvey, annulled the former Commissioner of Environmental Conservation’s determination that a road within the Adirondack Park had been abandoned and therefore could not be used by snowmobilers. The determination reversed an earlier determination that the road had not been abandoned. The second determination was made pursuant to the Department of Environmental Conservation’s (DEC’s) motion to clarify. The Third Department held that, although titled a motion to clarify, the motion was actually a motion to reconsider, the criteria for which were not met:

The motion was, in effect, one to reconsider the 2009 determination. Yet, no statutory authority exists for DEC to reconsider a final determination issued in an administrative enforcement proceeding. … While the regulations governing enforcement proceedings allow a Commissioner to reopen the hearing record to consider “significant new evidence,” the Commissioner may only do so “prior to issuing the final [determination]” … .

“In the absence of any statutory [or regulatory] reservation of discretionary agency authority to reconsider its determinations, New York applies a long-standing policy of finality to the . . . determinations of an administrative agency” … . “Public officers or agents who exercise judgment and discretion in the performance of their duties may not revoke their [quasi-judicial] determinations nor review their own orders once properly and finally made, however much they may have erred in judgment on the facts, even though injustice is the result” … . This is not to say, of course, that an administrative body may never reconsider a previously issued final determination. Under settled law, a final agency determination may be corrected if it suffers from an error that “was the result of illegality, irregularity in vital matters, or fraud”… . Likewise, an agency has the inherent authority to reconsider a prior determination to “correct its erroneous interpretations of the law” … , or upon a showing of new information or changed circumstances … .

In our view, [the former Commissioner of Environmental Conservation’s] actions here ran afoul of the principle of finality attached to administrative determinations. Matter of Town of N. Elba v New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 2018 NY Slip Op 01369, Third Dept 3-1-18

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION, ADIRONDACK PARK, FORMER COMMISSIONER OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REVISIT A PRIOR FINDING THAT A ROAD WITHIN THE ADIRONDACK PARK HAD NOT BEEN ABANDONED AND THEREFORE COULD BE USED BY SNOWMOBILERS (THIRD DEPT))/ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (ADIRONDACK PARK, FORMER COMMISSIONER OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REVISIT A PRIOR FINDING THAT A ROAD WITHIN THE ADIRONDACK PARK HAD NOT BEEN ABANDONED AND THEREFORE COULD BE USED BY SNOWMOBILERS (THIRD DEPT))/ADIRONDACK PARK ( FORMER COMMISSIONER OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REVISIT A PRIOR FINDING THAT A ROAD WITHIN THE ADIRONDACK PARK HAD NOT BEEN ABANDONED AND THEREFORE COULD BE USED BY SNOWMOBILERS (THIRD DEPT))/HIGHWAYS AND ROADS (ADIRONDACK PARK,  FORMER COMMISSIONER OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REVISIT A PRIOR FINDING THAT A ROAD WITHIN THE ADIRONDACK PARK HAD NOT BEEN ABANDONED AND THEREFORE COULD BE USED BY SNOWMOBILERS (THIRD DEPT))/FINALITY, POLICY OF (ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATIONS, FORMER COMMISSIONER OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REVISIT A PRIOR FINDING THAT A ROAD WITHIN THE ADIRONDACK PARK HAD NOT BEEN ABANDONED AND THEREFORE COULD BE USED BY SNOWMOBILERS (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

tenant’s failure to report income from a new job to the new york city housing authority was a sufficient reason to terminate her tenancy.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, reversing the Appellate Division, determined a tenant’s failure to report her income to the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) was sufficient reason to terminate her tenancy, The tenant had pled guilty to petit larceny and agreed to repay the NYCHA $20,000 in installments:

Petitioner is a tenant in a New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) public housing apartment in Manhattan. In the late 1990s, she became employed, for the first time, as a bookkeeper. She failed to disclose her new earnings to her landlord, each year stating in an affidavit of income that she did not work. This omission allowed petitioner to pay a substantially lower rent than she would have had she revealed the income. …

A vital public interest underlies the need to enforce income rules pertaining to public housing. Despite petitioner’s alleged difficulties if her tenancy is terminated, public housing is of limited availability and there are waiting lists of other families in need of homes, whose situations may be equally sympathetic. If income reporting violations were to be ignored by the NYCHA, there would be … no meaningful deterrent to residents of income-based public housing who misstate their earnings. If residents believe that the misrepresentation of income carries little to no chance of eviction, the possibility of restitution after criminal conviction may not serve adequately to discourage this illegal practice. The deterrent value of eviction, however, is clearly significant and supports the purposes of the limited supply of publicly-supported housing. It follows, then, that NYCHA’s decision to terminate petitioner’s tenancy is not so disproportionate to her misconduct as to shock the judicial conscience. Matter of Perez v Rhea, 2013 NY Slip Op 00953 [20 NY3d 399], CtApp 2-14-13

 

, ,

CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF PAROLE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN HELD IN CONTEMPT FOR FAILURE TO HOLD A DE NOVO PAROLE HEARING AS ORDERED BY THE ARTICLE 78 COURT, THE EXECUTIVE LAW DOES NOT CALL FOR A HEARING IN THIS CONTEXT, ONLY AN INTERVIEW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the chairperson of the Board of Parole should not have been held in civil contempt for a purported failure to follow Supreme Court’s order. After an inmate contested the denial of parole in an Article 78 action, Supreme Court granted the inmate’s petition and ordered the parole board to hold a de novo parole “hearing.” The parole board conducted a parole “interview.” The inmate then moved to hold the parole board chairperson in contempt for failing to conduct a “hearing.” The opinion is comprehensive and too detailed to fairly summarize here. In a nutshell, the Second Department determined the Executive Law does not call for a “hearing” in this context, only an “interview:”

​

Pursuant to the relevant provisions of the Executive Law governing the Board’s procedures, we conclude that the court was without authority to order a de novo evidentiary “hearing,” as the petitioner was only entitled to a de novo parole release “interview” and review (see Executive Law § 259-i[2][a][i]). Applying our well-established contempt jurisprudence, it cannot be said that the language employed in the judgment … , was clear and unambiguous since the Board could have reasonably understood and interpreted the judgment as directing it to conduct a de novo interview consistent with the requirements of the controlling statutory language. Contempt findings are inappropriate where, as here, there can be a legitimate disagreement about what the terms of an order or judgment actually mean … . The Board endeavored to comply with the judgment … , by providing a de novo parole release interview with a reconsideration of the petitioner’s record consistent with its statutory mandate under the Executive Law and consistent with its common practices. Matter of Banks v Stanford, 2018 NY Slip Op 00829, Second Dept 2-7-18

CRIMINAL LAW (PAROLE, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF PAROLE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN HELD IN CONTEMPT FOR FAILURE TO HOLD A DE NOVO PAROLE HEARING AS ORDERED BY THE ARTICLE 78 COURT, THE EXECUTIVE LAW DOES NOT CALL FOR A HEARING IN THIS CONTEXT, ONLY AN INTERVIEW (SECOND DEPT))/PAROLE (CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF PAROLE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN HELD IN CONTEMPT FOR FAILURE TO HOLD A DE NOVO PAROLE HEARING AS ORDERED BY THE ARTICLE 78 COURT, THE EXECUTIVE LAW DOES NOT CALL FOR A HEARING IN THIS CONTEXT, ONLY AN INTERVIEW (SECOND DEPT))/ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (PAROLE BOARD, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF PAROLE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN HELD IN CONTEMPT FOR FAILURE TO HOLD A DE NOVO PAROLE HEARING AS ORDERED BY THE ARTICLE 78 COURT, THE EXECUTIVE LAW DOES NOT CALL FOR A HEARING IN THIS CONTEXT, ONLY AN INTERVIEW (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

STATE DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS’ FINDING THAT PETITIONER WAS NOT SUBJECT TO A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT AND WAS NOT CONSTRUCTIVELY DISCHARGED BECAUSE OF HER SEX SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD, LIMITED COURT REVIEW POWERS EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the findings of the NYS Division of Human Rights (SDHR) in this sex discrimination action should not be disturbed. The SDHR found that petitioner was not subjected to a hostile work environment and was not constructively discharged because of her sex. The Second Department explained the court’s limited review power in this context:

​

The scope of judicial review under the Human Rights Law is extremely narrow and is confined to the consideration of whether the determination of the SDHR is supported by substantial evidence in the record… . Substantial evidence “means such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact . . . More than seeming or imaginary, it is less than a preponderance of the evidence, overwhelming evidence or evidence beyond a reasonable doubt” … .. “Courts may not weigh the evidence or reject [the SDHR’s] determination where the evidence is conflicting and room for choice exists” … . Here, there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Commissioner’s determination that the petitioner was not subjected to a hostile work environment or constructively discharged because of her sex … . Matter of Leippe v Gerald J. Wilkoff, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 00294, Second Dept 1-17-18

EMPLOYMENT LAW (STATE DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS’ FINDING THAT PETITIONER WAS NOT SUBJECT TO A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT AND WAS NOT CONSTRUCTIVELY DISCHARGED BECAUSE OF HER SEX SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD, LIMITED COURT REVIEW POWERS EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION, STATE DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS’ FINDING THAT PETITIONER WAS NOT SUBJECT TO A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT AND WAS NOT CONSTRUCTIVELY DISCHARGED BECAUSE OF HER SEX SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD, LIMITED COURT REVIEW POWERS EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION, STATE DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS’ FINDING THAT PETITIONER WAS NOT SUBJECT TO A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT AND WAS NOT CONSTRUCTIVELY DISCHARGED BECAUSE OF HER SEX SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD, LIMITED COURT REVIEW POWERS EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION  (STATE DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS’ FINDING THAT PETITIONER WAS NOT SUBJECT TO A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT AND WAS NOT CONSTRUCTIVELY DISCHARGED BECAUSE OF HER SEX SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD, LIMITED COURT REVIEW POWERS EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

PETITIONER COLLEGE STUDENT IS ENTITLED TO A NEW DISCIPLINARY HEARING, THE TESTIMONY AT THE HEARING BY THE COLLEGE’S TITLE IX COORDINATOR INCORRECTLY EXPLAINED THE MANNER IN WHICH CONSENT TO SEX CAN BE COMMUNICATED, DISSENTING JUSTICES ARGUED THE STUDENT WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE REPORTING INDIVIDUAL AND THE DETERMINATION SHOULD BE ANNULLED AND EXPUNGED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing SUNY Plattsburgh’s dismissal of petitioner-student, over a two-justice partial dissent, determined that a new disciplinary hearing was required because the Title IX Coordinator’s (Butterfly Blaise’s) testimony at the hearing reflected a misunderstanding of how consent to sex can be communicated. The facts of the sexual encounter between petitioner and the “reporting individual,” another student, were presented at the hearing by Blaise because, by statute, the reporting individual can decide whether or not to participate in the hearing.  The dissenting justices argued that the petitioner was denied his due process right to cross-examine the reporting individual and the determination should be annulled and expunged.  The majority found that the procedure employed by the college, including notice of the charges, comported with the controlling “Enough is Enough Law” and due process. The decision goes through all the arguments made by petitioner, which are substantive and well worth reading, but which cannot be fairly summarized here. With respect to the evidence of consent, the court wrote:

​

During the hearing, petitioner asked Blaise to define affirmative consent and she read the statutory definition, including that “consent can be given by words or actions as long as those words or actions create clear permission regarding willingness to engage in sexual activity.” Petitioner then asked, “So affirmative consent can be implied or referred [sic] from conduct?”, and Blaise responded, “[O]nly if the direct question is: Can I have sex with you? So you must ask directly what it is that you want to do to that person. . . . And the answer affirmatively must be yes.” This explanation was incorrect. The error was compounded when petitioner next inquired whether the consent standard applied to both parties, and Blaise explained that the obligation applied to the person initiating the sexual activity. When petitioner asked, “How do you define initiation?”, Blaise explained “that you initiated sexual intercourse by penetrating her.” This, too, was erroneous for the concepts of consent and initiation pertain to either verbal communication or the conduct between the participants, not simply the physical act of penetration.

Blaise’s mistakes raise a concern with regard to the Board’s determination, which was, simply, that petitioner was responsible for violating the Student Conduct Manual because he “initiated sexual intercourse with another student three different times without establishing affirmative consent.” By this determination, the Board failed to provide the requisite “findings of fact . . . [and] rationale for the decision and the sanction” (Education Law § 6444 [5] [b]). As a consequence of Blaise’s erroneous interpretations, we, like petitioner, are unable to discern whether the Board properly determined that petitioner initiated the sexual activity or even considered whether affirmative consent was given based on the reporting individual’s conduct. Matter of Jacobson v Blaise, 2018 NY Slip Op 00205, Third Dept 1-11-18

EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (COLLEGES, DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS, PETITIONER COLLEGE STUDENT IS ENTITLED TO A NEW DISCIPLINARY HEARING, THE TESTIMONY AT THE HEARING BY THE COLLEGE’S TITLE IX COORDINATOR INCORRECTLY EXPLAINED THE MANNER IN WHICH CONSENT TO SEX CAN BE COMMUNICATED, DISSENTING JUSTICES ARGUED THE STUDENT WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE REPORTING INDIVIDUAL AND THE DETERMINATION SHOULD BE ANNULLED AND EXPUNGED (THIRD DEPT))/ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (COLLEGES, DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS, PETITIONER COLLEGE STUDENT IS ENTITLED TO A NEW DISCIPLINARY HEARING, THE TESTIMONY AT THE HEARING BY THE COLLEGE’S TITLE IX COORDINATOR INCORRECTLY EXPLAINED THE MANNER IN WHICH CONSENT TO SEX CAN BE COMMUNICATED, DISSENTING JUSTICES ARGUED THE STUDENT WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE REPORTING INDIVIDUAL AND THE DETERMINATION SHOULD BE ANNULLED AND EXPUNGED (THIRD DEPT))/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (COLLEGES, DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS, PETITIONER COLLEGE STUDENT IS ENTITLED TO A NEW DISCIPLINARY HEARING, THE TESTIMONY AT THE HEARING BY THE COLLEGE’S TITLE IX COORDINATOR INCORRECTLY EXPLAINED THE MANNER IN WHICH CONSENT TO SEX CAN BE COMMUNICATED, DISSENTING JUSTICES ARGUED THE STUDENT WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE REPORTING INDIVIDUAL AND THE DETERMINATION SHOULD BE ANNULLED AND EXPUNGED (THIRD DEPT))/COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES ( DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS, PETITIONER COLLEGE STUDENT IS ENTITLED TO A NEW DISCIPLINARY HEARING, THE TESTIMONY AT THE HEARING BY THE COLLEGE’S TITLE IX COORDINATOR INCORRECTLY EXPLAINED THE MANNER IN WHICH CONSENT TO SEX CAN BE COMMUNICATED, DISSENTING JUSTICES ARGUED THE STUDENT WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE REPORTING INDIVIDUAL AND THE DETERMINATION SHOULD BE ANNULLED AND EXPUNGED (THIRD DEPT))/ENOUGH IS ENOUGH LAW (COLLEGES, DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS, PETITIONER COLLEGE STUDENT IS ENTITLED TO A NEW DISCIPLINARY HEARING, THE TESTIMONY AT THE HEARING BY THE COLLEGE’S TITLE IX COORDINATOR INCORRECTLY EXPLAINED THE MANNER IN WHICH CONSENT TO SEX CAN BE COMMUNICATED, DISSENTING JUSTICES ARGUED THE STUDENT WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE REPORTING INDIVIDUAL AND THE DETERMINATION SHOULD BE ANNULLED AND EXPUNGED (THIRD DEPT))/DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (COLLEGES, PETITIONER COLLEGE STUDENT IS ENTITLED TO A NEW DISCIPLINARY HEARING, THE TESTIMONY AT THE HEARING BY THE COLLEGE’S TITLE IX COORDINATOR INCORRECTLY EXPLAINED THE MANNER IN WHICH CONSENT TO SEX CAN BE COMMUNICATED, DISSENTING JUSTICES ARGUED THE STUDENT WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE REPORTING INDIVIDUAL AND THE DETERMINATION SHOULD BE ANNULLED AND EXPUNGED (THIRD DEPT))

,

THREE CASES IN WHICH THE APPELLATE DIVISIONS FOUND THE TERMINATION OF TEACHERS TOO SEVERE A PUNISHMENT REVERSED, APPELLATE DIVISIONS HAD EXCEEDED THEIR AUTHORITY TO REVIEW ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTIES (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a brief memorandum decision supplemented by an extensive memorandum by Judge Rivera, reversed the appellate divisions in three cases involving teachers who were terminated from their employment in administrative proceedings. In all three cases, the appellate divisions had found termination too severe a punishment. The Court of Appeals reinstated the punishment (termination) and explained in depth how the appellate divisions had exceeded their statutory powers for review of administrative determinations:

From the Concurring Memorandum: Termination of employment for the misconduct evinced in these three appeals is neither irrational nor such an affront to one's sense of fairness as to shock the conscience. This Court has repeatedly explained that under this “rigorous” standard, an administrative sanction may not be disturbed unless it is “disproportionate to the misconduct . . . of the individual, or the harm or risk of harm to the agency or the public” … . Whether a punishment may deter future misconduct and reflects societal standards given the nature of the offense are appropriate factors for judicial consideration. A difference of opinion as to the appropriate penalty, however, “does not provide a basis for vacating the arbitral award or refashioning the penalty” … . As in these appeals, dismissal is not a shocking response to cases in which a teacher encourages cheating, falsifies documents leaving a student without educational services, or crosses the line of proper student-teacher interactions by making sexually suggestive inquiries about a student's relatives. Matter of Bolt v New York City Dept. of Educ., 2018 NY Slip Op 00090, Ct App 1-9-18

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, THREE CASES IN WHICH THE APPELLATE DIVISIONS FOUND THE TERMINATION OF TEACHERS TOO SEVERE A PUNISHMENT REVERSED, APPELLATE DIVISIONS HAD EXCEEDED THEIR AUTHORITY TO REVIEW ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTIES (CT APP))/EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, THREE CASES IN WHICH THE APPELLATE DIVISIONS FOUND THE TERMINATION OF TEACHERS TOO SEVERE A PUNISHMENT REVERSED, APPELLATE DIVISIONS HAD EXCEEDED THEIR AUTHORITY TO REVIEW ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTIES (CT APP))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW,  THREE CASES IN WHICH THE APPELLATE DIVISIONS FOUND THE TERMINATION OF TEACHERS TOO SEVERE A PUNISHMENT REVERSED, APPELLATE DIVISIONS HAD EXCEEDED THEIR AUTHORITY TO REVIEW ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTIES (CT APP))/TEACHERS (ADMINISTRATIVE LAW,  EMPLOYMENT LAW, THREE CASES IN WHICH THE APPELLATE DIVISIONS FOUND THE TERMINATION OF TEACHERS TOO SEVERE A PUNISHMENT REVERSED, APPELLATE DIVISIONS HAD EXCEEDED THEIR AUTHORITY TO REVIEW ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTIES (CT APP))

, ,

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION ALLEGING VIOLATION OF BUILDING HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS WAS UNTIMELY BECAUSE THE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT AS AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiffs’ declaratory judgment action should have been brought as an Article 78 proceeding and was properly dismissed as untimely. The action concerned alleged violations of height restrictions on new construction which had been the subject of a final environmental impact statement (FEIS):

An action for a declaratory judgment is generally governed by a six-year statute of limitations (see CPLR 213[1]). However, where a declaratory judgment action involves claims that could have been made in another proceeding for which a specific limitation period is provided, the action is subject to the shorter limitations period … . Where an action could have been brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, the four-month statute of limitations applicable to such proceedings applies … .

A proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 may be brought to review a determination of a public body or officer which is “final and binding upon the petitioner” (CPLR 217[1]; see CPLR 7801[1]). There are two requirements for fixing the time when agency action is final and binding upon the petitioner: “First, the agency must have reached a definitive position on the issue that inflicts actual, concrete injury and second, the injury inflicted may not be prevented or significantly ameliorated by further administrative action or by steps available to the complaining party” … . A determination is final and the statute of limitations begins to run when the agency’s “definitive position on the issue [becomes] readily ascertainable” to the complaining party … , so that the petitioner knew or should have known that it was aggrieved… .

Here, the Supreme Court properly determined that this action could have been brought as a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 … . Save The View Now v Brooklyn Bridge Park Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 09189, Second Dept 12-27-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (ARTICLE 78 VERSUS DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION ALLEGING VIOLATION OF BUILDING HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS WAS UNTIMELY BECAUSE THE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT AS AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT))/DECLARATORY JUDGMENT  (ARTICLE 78 VERSUS DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION ALLEGING VIOLATION OF BUILDING HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS WAS UNTIMELY BECAUSE THE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT AS AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT))/ARTICLE 78 (ARTICLE 78 VERSUS DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION ALLEGING VIOLATION OF BUILDING HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS WAS UNTIMELY BECAUSE THE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT AS AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT))/ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (BUILDING HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS , ARTICLE 78 VERSUS DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION ALLEGING VIOLATION OF BUILDING HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS WAS UNTIMELY BECAUSE THE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT AS AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT))/ADMINISTRATIVE LAW  (ARTICLE 78 VERSUS DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION ALLEGING VIOLATION OF BUILDING HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS WAS UNTIMELY BECAUSE THE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT AS AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING (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