You are here: / Administrative Law
, , ,

THE CITY OF KINGSTON PROPERLY OPTED IN TO A RENT STABILIZATION REGIME PURSUANT TO THE HOUSING STABILITY AND TENANT PROTECTION ACT (HSTPA), PROPERLY DECLARED A HOUSING EMERGENCY, AND PROPERLY PROMULGATED RELATED GUIDELINES (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Halligan, determined the City of Kingston properly opted in to a rent stabilization regime pursuant to the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act (HSTPA) and properly declared a housing emergency. Petitioners, a group of private landlords and an association representing landlords in the Hudson Valley, unsuccessfuly sought to invalidate Kingston’s Emergency Tenant Protection Act (ETPA) opt-in and two guidelines subsequently promulgated by the Kingston New York Rent Guidelines Board (KRGB). The opinion is too detailed to fairly summarize here:

To enter into the ETPA’s rent-stabilization regime, a municipality’s “local legislative body” must make “[a] declaration of emergency” as to all or any class of housing accommodations within the municipality. It may do so only if the vacancy rate for those housing accommodations “is not in excess of five percent” … . Once the municipality makes such a declaration, it must recommend members to be appointed to a newly formed rent guidelines board by the State Division of Housing and Community Renewal’s (DHCR) commissioner … . Matter of Hudson Val. Prop. Owners Assn. Inc. v City of Kingston, 2025 NY Slip Op 03691, CtApp 6-18-25

 

, ,

THE REGULATIONS WHICH ALLOW THE COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION TO DETERMINE WHETHER A NONPUBLIC SCHOOL OFFERS EDUCATION SUBSTANTIALLY EQUIVALENT TO THAT OFFERED BY LOCAL PUBLIC SCHOOLS WERE PROPERLY PROMULGATED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, determined the regulations which allow the Commissioner of Education to enforce the requirement that nonpublic schools provide an education “substantially equivalent” to that provided by local public schools were properly promulgated:

​Petitioners argue that 8 NYCRR 130.6 (c) (2) (i) and 8 NYCRR 130.8 (d) (7) (i) are invalid because they compel parents to “unenroll” their children from schools deemed not substantially equivalent, authorizing and necessarily leading to school closures, and that this exceeds the authority of the Commissioner. * * *

The regulatory provisions at issue here state that, in the event of a negative substantial equivalency determination, “the nonpublic school shall no longer be deemed a school which provides compulsory education fulfilling the requirements of Article 65 of the Education Law” … . A determination that a nonpublic school has failed to meet the substantial equivalence requirement leads naturally to this acknowledgement—that the nonpublic school fails to comply with the Education Law’s substantial equivalency mandate and thus is not a school that fulfills the statutory requirement for compulsory education. Far from exceeding the Commissioner’s statutory authority, the regulations simply establish a mechanism by which the statutory mandate is enforced. In this regard, instead of being contrary to the statute’s purpose, the challenged regulations are a natural consequence flowing from the statutory language itself.

Contrary to petitioners’ claims, nothing in these provisions requires that parents “unenroll” their children from a nonpublic school deemed not to provide substantially equivalent instruction. Nor do the regulations authorize school closures. The provisions merely state that the nonpublic school does not provide substantially equivalent instruction—a determination well within the authority provided to the Commissioner by the statute. The parent or custodian must determine how then to ensure their compliance with the Education Law. Matter of Parents for Educ. & Religious Liberty in Schs. v Young, 2025 NY Slip Op 03689, CtApp 6-18-25

 

, , , , ,

THE PETITIONER, A NEW YORK CITY FIREFIGHTER, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE FIRE DEPARTMENT IMPROPERLY DENIED PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR A RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION FROM THE COVID VACCINE MANDATE; SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner-firefighter did not demonstrate the NYC Fire Department (FDNY) improperly denied petitioner’s request for a religious exemption from the COVID vaccine mandate:

Pursuant to the NYCHRL [New York City Human Rights Law], it is “an unlawful discriminatory practice” for an employer “to refuse or otherwise fail to engage in a cooperative dialogue within a reasonable time with a person who has requested an accommodation” for, among other possibilities, “religious needs” (Administrative Code § 8-107[28][a][1]). Here, the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the appellants’ process for resolving requests for a reasonable accommodation from the vaccine mandate did not meet the requirements of the NYCHRL regarding cooperative dialogue … . The appellants provided information on the process for reviewing accommodation requests related to the vaccine mandate and informed employees on how to appeal request denials. The record demonstrates that the petitioner availed himself of this process. The record also shows that there were multiple communications between the petitioner, the FDNY, and the [City of New York Reasonable Accommodation Appeals Panel] regarding the petitioner’s accommodation request. The petitioner failed to establish that, under the unique circumstances present at the time of the vaccine mandate, the NYCHRL required a more robust or individualized dialogue.

The petitioner also failed to demonstrate that the determination to deny him a religious exemption from the vaccine mandate was arbitrary and capricious … . Matter of Smith v New York City Fire Dept., 2025 NY Slip Op 03728, Second Dept 6-18-25

Practice Point: Here the petitioner-firefighter had won in Supreme Court and was reinstated with back pay. But the Second Department reversed finding petitioner was not entitled to a religious exemption from the COVID vaccine mandate.

 

, , , ,

HERE PLAINTIFF’S PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF APARTMENTS WAS PROHIBITED BY A LOCAL LAW; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THE BIAS OF THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE PLANNING BOARD INFECTED THE PLANNING BOARD’S RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD (WHICH ENACTED THE LAW); THOSE ALLEGATIONS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT PRECLUDING SUMMARY JUDGMENT FINDING THE LOCAL LAW VALID (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garry, determined questions of fact precluded summary judgment in favor of the town in this dispute over the approval of the construction of apartments. Plaintiffs alleged that the chairperson of the planning board, who owned adjacent property, was biased against the proposed construction and his bias infected the planning board’s recommendation:

As Supreme Court correctly noted, the enactment that plaintiffs seek to invalidate in this action was a product of the Town Board, not the Planning Board … . We further note that it is expressly within the power of the Planning Board to submit advisory opinions to the Town Board for proposed amendment to the zoning law … . For these reasons, it is possible that the connection of the alleged bias to the action of the Town Board may ultimately be insufficiently direct. Supreme Court’s decision apparently rejected plaintiffs’ allegations on this ground. Nonetheless, accepting plaintiffs’ allegations as true, the extent to which the long-term Chairperson’s alleged bias infected the Planning Board’s recommendation to the Town Board that multifamily dwelling development be reconsidered, the Town’s subsequent investigation thereof, and the Town Board’s ultimate adoption of the challenged local law limiting same is not amenable to resolution as a matter of law at this procedural stage … . Thus, any declaration regarding the validity of Local Law No. 2022-08 was premature, and Supreme Court’s order must be reversed in full so that the action may proceed through the ordinary course. PF Dev. Group, LLC v Town of Brunswick, 2025 NY Slip Op 03671, Third Dept 6-18-25

Practice Point: Here allegations that the passage of a local law was influenced by bias on the part of the chairperson of the planning board raised a question of fact precluding summary judgment finding the local law valid.​

 

, , ,

HERE THE HOSPITAL DEFENDANTS WERE NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (NYCHRL) BUT WERE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE NEW YORK STATE HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (NYSHRL) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the defendant hospital was not entitled to summary judgment in this disability discrimination case under the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) but was entitled to summary judgment under the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL):

In order to prevail on a claim of disability discrimination under the NYCHRL, “an employer must demonstrate that it engage[d] in a good faith interactive process that assesse[d] the needs of the disabled individual and the reasonableness of the accommodation requested” … . Here, the hospital defendants failed to show that they engaged in an interactive process and reasonable accommodation analysis prior to terminating the plaintiff’s employment … .

However, the Supreme Court should have granted those branches of the hospital defendants’ motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action alleging disability discrimination under the NYSHRL insofar as asserted against them. “To establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination under the Executive Law, a plaintiff must establish, inter alia, that he or she was otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions of the position, with or without a reasonable accommodation” … . Here, the hospital defendants established, prima facie, that the plaintiff could not perform the essential functions of her job with or without a reasonable accommodation … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, under the NYSHRL, the hospital defendants cannot be held liable for failing to engage in an interactive process where the employee has failed to provide evidence to the employer that he or she could perform the essential functions of the job with or without a reasonable accommodation … . Makharadze v Ognibene, 2025 NY Slip Op 03713, Second Dept 6-18-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for an example of a disability discrimination case where the defendants were entitled to summary judgment under the New York State Human Rights Law but not under the New York City Human Rights Law.

 

,

THE TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL’S DETERMINATION THAT PETITIONERS CANNOT REDUCE THEIR NEW YORK ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME BY THE AMORTIZED PREMIUMS ON THEIR OUT-STATE-BONDS UPHELD (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Fisher, upheld the Tax Appeals Tribunal’s determination that petitioners can not reduce their New York adjusted gross income by amortized premiums on their out-of-state bonds:

Petitioners are married and residents of New York. During the years 2012 through 2016 (hereinafter the years at issue), they engaged in an investment strategy that included purchasing out-of-state bonds on the secondary market. Due to the initial interest rate of the bonds being higher than the prevailing market rate at the time of purchase, petitioners also paid an additional premium to acquire the bonds. Where the duration of a bond exceeded one year, petitioners further made an upfront premium payment for each remaining year until the bond’s maturity. As relevant here, the amount of the premium paid for each year of the bond is called the amortized premium.

On their respective tax returns for the years at issue, petitioners sought to reduce their New York adjusted gross income by the amortized premiums on their out-of-state bonds. Following an audit, notices of deficiency were issued to petitioners by the Department of Taxation and Finance (hereinafter the Department) stating that they owed additional income taxes for the years at issue, plus interest and penalties. Thereafter, the Department determined that petitioners could not subtract the premiums directly from their interest income, but rather may only report such premiums as part of their itemized deduction, and ultimately issued notices of disallowance. Matter of Ciardullo v McDonnell, 2025 NY Slip Op 03365, Third Dept 6-5-25

 

, ,

AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING WAS BROUGHT BY THE UNIVERSITY AGAINST PETITIONER-STUDENT BASED UPON ANOTHER STUDENT’S (THE REPORTING INDIVIDUAL’S) ALLEGATIONS SHE WAS SEXUALLY ASSAULTED; THE UNIVERSITY’S TITLE IX GRIEVANCE POLICY PROVIDES THAT WHERE, AS HERE, THE REPORTING INDIVIDUAL IS ABSENT FROM THE HEARING AND IS NOT SUBJECT TO CROSS-EXAMINATION, ANY DETERMINATION BY THE UNIVERSITY CANNOT BE BASED UPON STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO THE REPORTING INDIVIDUAL; THE DETERMINATION WAS ANNULLED ON THAT GROUND (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, annulled the university’s determination petitioner had violated the university’s “Community Rights and Responsibilities” by sexually assaulting the reporting individual. Petitioner did not deny kissing an touching the reporting individual, but contended all the interactions were consensual. The reporting individual did not testify at the hearing. The university’s Title IX grievance policy provides that, when the reporting individual does not testify and is not subject to cross-examination, the determination cannot be based upon any statement attributed to the reporting individual. Here statements by the reporting individual were the basis for the university’s determination:

Petitioner contends that he was denied due process because he was not afforded the opportunity to question the reporting individual, who did not testify at the hearing or otherwise submit to cross-examination. Under the circumstances presented here, we agree and conclude that annulment is required. “In general, there is a limited right to cross-examine an adverse witness in an administrative proceeding, and the right to cross-examine witnesses generally has not been considered an essential requirement of due process in school disciplinary proceedings” … . Nevertheless, “[i]t is well established that once having adopted rules or guidelines establishing the procedures to be followed in relation to suspension or expulsion of a student, colleges or universities — both public and private — must substantially comply with those rules and guidelines” … . Matter of Bibler v State Univ. of N.Y. at Albany, 2025 NY Slip Op 03373, Third Dept 6-5-25

Practice Point: In a university disciplinary proceeding stemming from an allegation of sexual assault, the right to cross-examine the accuser is not considered an essential requirement of due process. However, the university is required to abide by its own rules. Here the rules stated that, where the accuser is absent from the hearing and is not cross-examined, the university’s determination cannot be based upon statements made by the accuser. The university’s failure to comply with that rule required that the determination be annulled.

 

,

THE NYS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION’S CALCULATION OF THE STUDENT TUITION TO BE PAID TO CHARTER SCHOOLS UPHELD (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Ceresia, upheld the NYS Education Department’s calculation of the student tuition to be paid to petitioners, operators of charter schools in New York City. The calculation was not “arbitrary or capricious.” Matter of Coney Is. Preparatory Pub. Charter Sch. v New York State Educ. Dept., 2025 NY Slip Op 03374, Third Dept 6-5-25

 

,

THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH’S BOARD FOR PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL CONDUCT PROPERLY REVOKED PETITIONER-RADIATION-ONCOLOGIST’S LICENSE TO PRACTICE MEDICINE; THE BOARD’S EXPERT OPINED THAT PETITIONER’S USE OF HIGHER “CURATIVE” RADIATION DOSES WHEN LOWER “PALLIATIVE” DOSES WERE APPROPRIATE FELL SHORT OF THE RELEVANT STANDARD OF CARE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Troutman, determined the Department of Health’s Board for Professional Medical Conduct properly revoked petitioner’s license to practice medicine. Petitioner, a radiation oncologist, was found to have deviated from the generally accepted standard of care by administering higher “curative” doses of radiation treatment when lower “palliative” doses were appropriate. The inquiry came down to a battle of experts about what the appropriate standard of care is. The petitioner argued that the Board’s expert improperly relied solely on clinical practice guidelines for that determination:

Petitioner’s contention that the Board’s expert relied solely on clinical practice guidelines overvalues the import of the following testimony:

Counsel: “[W]hat do you mean when you say standard of care?

Expert: “We have accepted guidelines that are published by multiple societies, they include our board, [the] American College of Radiology or [the] American Board of Radiology, [and] national comprehensive cancer networks and these are fairly descriptive, prescriptive guidelines for what a physician should do in the management of cases in very specific areas. When you deviate from those, it is considered to fall short of a standard.”

This answer by the Board’s expert, and others like it, should not be viewed in isolation. The Board’s expert was well-credentialed and had over 30 years of practice in the field of radiation oncology. Rather than merely citing the clinical practice guidelines as being the standard of care, he established the standard of care as he understood it based on his years of seeing patients. For each of the seven patients at issue, the Board’s expert identified the relevant medical and scientific principles underlying the standard of care and provided detailed explanations about why that standard best served patients and why deviating from it risked causing significant harm to those patients. Thus, respondent’s expert did not rely exclusively on clinical practice guidelines. Instead, as the Appellate Division concluded, he used those guidelines as “one link in the chain” of his evaluation process … . Matter of Won Yi v New York State Bd. of Professional Med. Conduct, 2025 NY Slip Op 03103, CtApp 5-22-25

 

, , ,

WHERE, AS HERE, PLAINTIFFS ALLEGE THE CONTESTED SALES TAX STATUTE IS “WHOLLY INAPPLICABLE” TO THEM, AND PLAINTIFFS SEEK A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT TO THAT EFFECT, THE “EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES” REQUIREMENT IS NOT RELEVANT (THRID DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined some of the plaintiffs had not failed to exhaust their administrative remedies in this action contesting the imposition of sales tax on the construction and demolition inspection services provided by plaintiffs. There is an exception to the “exhaustion of administrative remedies” requirement where, as here, plaintiffs claim the tax statute at issue is “wholly inapplicable” to them:

… [T]he remaining plaintiffs did not, as Supreme Court held, fail to exhaust their administrative remedies. Generally, a taxpayer must utilize statutory administrative remedies prior to commencing an action against the taxing entity … . That said, there is an exception to this requirement when, as relevant here, a tax statute is attacked as wholly inapplicable to the plaintiff … . “To challenge a statute as wholly inapplicable, the taxpayer must allege that the agency had no jurisdiction over it or the matter that was taxed” … . “This exception to the rule [mandating exhaustion of administrative remedies] is limited to those cases where no factual issue is raised” concerning the subject matter of the tax dispute … .

The remaining plaintiffs qualify for the “wholly inapplicable” exception, as the complaint alleges that DTF [Department of Taxation and Finance] lacks jurisdiction because Tax Law § 1105 (c) (8) does not apply to their site safety services. Further, there are no factual issues at play here. * * * … [T]he complaint simply seeks a declaration that site safety services, as specifically defined in the New York City Building Code, are exempt from sales tax … . Site Safety LLC v New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin., 2025 NY Slip Op 02255, Third Dept 4-17-25

Practice Point: Here plaintiffs alleged the relevant sales-tax statute was wholly inapplicable to them and sought a declaratory judgment to that effect. The proceeding therefore is excepted from the “exhaustion of administrative remedies” requirement.

 

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