You are here: / Administrative Law
,

NYC WATER BOARD’S RATE HIKE AND BILL CREDIT WERE NOT IRRATIONAL. ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, over a two-judge dissent, reversing the appellate division, determined the rate hike imposed by the NYC Water Board was not arbitrary and capricious. The board imposed a 2.1% rate increase, a bill credit, and assistance programs and low-consumption rate freeze. Petitioners — various landlords not eligible for the bill credit and a landlords’ not-for-profit association — … assert that the Water Board’s determinations were irrational, arbitrary and capricious, and exceeded the Board’s authority:

​

Our case law holds that a utility has “unfettered discretion to fix [rates] as it will so long as invidious illicit discriminations are not practiced and differentials are not utterly arbitrary and unsupported by economic or public policy goals, as it reasonably conceives them”… . A petitioner’s task in demonstrating that the rate-setting agency’s determination is unreasonable is appropriately described as a “heavy burden” … .

It is clear from the governing statutes that water and sewer rates may be determined in accordance with public policy goals, and not only economic goals. The Water Board “may take into consideration the views and policies of any elected official or body, or other person” and ultimately “appl[ies] independent judgment in the best interest of the authority, its mission and the public” … . Moreover, the statutory scheme gives the Board leeway to charge more than the bare minimum necessary for revenue recovery, by stating that the rates are to generate “revenues which, together with other revenues available to the board, if any, shall be at least sufficient at all times so that such system or systems shall be placed on a self-sustaining basis” … . In short, New York City’s “Water Board is granted broad authority to set rates for water usage” … .

Here, we cannot say that respondents’ actions were “utterly arbitrary and unsupported by economic or public policy goals, as it reasonably conceives them” … . Matter of Prometheus Realty Corp. v New York City Water Bd., 2017 NY Slip Op 08801, CtApp 12-19-17

 

MUNICIPAL LAW (NYC WATER BOARD’S RATE HIKE AND BILL CREDIT WERE NOT IRRATIONAL, ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS (CT APP))/ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (NYC WATER BOARD’S RATE HIKE AND BILL CREDIT WERE NOT IRRATIONAL, ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS (CT APP))/WATER BOARD (NYC WATER BOARD’S RATE HIKE AND BILL CREDIT WERE NOT IRRATIONAL, ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS (CT APP))

,

HEARSAY IS ADMISSIBLE IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS AND MAY CONSTITUTE THE SOLE BASIS FOR A DETERMINATION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in upholding a fine imposed upon a bar by the NYS Liquor Authority relating to an altercation, the court explained the use of hearsay in an administrative proceeding:

​

“Judicial review of an administrative determination made after a hearing required by law, and at which evidence was taken, is limited to whether that determination is supported by substantial evidence” … . Substantial evidence has been defined as “such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact” … . It is “[m]ore than seeming or imaginary, it is less than a preponderance of the evidence, overwhelming evidence or evidence beyond a reasonable doubt” … . ” The standard demands only that a given inference is reasonable and plausible, not necessarily the most probable'” … . The strict rules of evidence do not apply to administrative proceedings and hearsay evidence is admissible… . Hearsay evidence may constitute substantial evidence if sufficiently relevant and probative and may, under appropriate circumstances, form the sole basis for an agency’s determination, unless it is seriously controverted … . Matter of Bracco’s Clam & Oyster Bar, Inc. v New York State Liq. Auth., 2017 NY Slip Op 08516, Second Dept 12-6-17

 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (HEARSAY, HEARSAY IS ADMISSIBLE IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS AND MAY CONSTITUTE THE SOLE BASIS FOR A DETERMINATION (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, HEARSAY IS ADMISSIBLE IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS AND MAY CONSTITUTE THE SOLE BASIS FOR A DETERMINATION (SECOND DEPT))/HEARSAY (ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, HEARSAY IS ADMISSIBLE IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS AND MAY CONSTITUTE THE SOLE BASIS FOR A DETERMINATION (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

NYC LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION’S DECISION THAT IT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REGULATE THE MECHANISM OF AND ACCESS TO A LANDMARK NINETEENTH CENTURY CLOCKTOWER WHICH HAD BEEN PURCHASED BY A PRIVATE PARTY WAS BASED UPON AN ERROR OF LAW AND WAS IRRATIONAL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gesmer, over a two-justice dissent, determined the NYC Landmarks Preservation Commission’s (LPC’s) decision to allow the electrification of a landmark nineteenth century clocktower (similar in structure to Big Ben) was based upon an error of law and was irrational. The clocktower had been sold to a private party which planned to convert it to a residence. The LPC found, in effect, that the commission did not have authority over the now privately-owned clocktower:

 

We hold that the LPC has authority under the Landmarks Law to regulate the clock mechanism for two reasons.

First, this result effectuates the statutory purposes. The Landmarks Law, New York City’s first historic preservation statute, * * * declares that “the protection, enhancement, perpetuation and use of improvements . . . of special character or special historical or aesthetic interest or value is a public necessity and is required in the interest of the health, prosperity, safety and welfare of the people” (Landmarks Law § 25-301[b]). … * * *

Second, the Landmarks Law defines the term “interior architectural feature” to include the “components of an interior, including, but not limited to . . . the type and style of all . . . fixtures appurtenant to such interior” (Landmarks Law § 25-302[l]). Matter of Save America’s Clocks, Inc. v City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 08457, First Dept 11-30-17

 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (NYC LANDMARKS PRESERVATION LAW NYC LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION’S DECISION THAT IT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REGULATE THE MECHANISM OF AND ACCESS TO A LANDMARK NINETEENTH CENTURY CLOCKTOWER WHICH HAD BEEN PURCHASED BY A PRIVATE PARTY WAS BASED UPON AN ERROR OF LAW AND WAS IRRATIONAL (FIRST DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW  (NYC LANDMARKS PRESERVATION LAW NYC LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION’S DECISION THAT IT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REGULATE THE MECHANISM OF AND ACCESS TO A LANDMARK NINETEENTH CENTURY CLOCKTOWER WHICH HAD BEEN PURCHASED BY A PRIVATE PARTY WAS BASED UPON AN ERROR OF LAW AND WAS IRRATIONAL (FIRST DEPT))/ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (NYC LANDMARKS PRESERVATION LAW NYC LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION’S DECISION THAT IT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REGULATE THE MECHANISM OF AND ACCESS TO A LANDMARK NINETEENTH CENTURY CLOCKTOWER WHICH HAD BEEN PURCHASED BY A PRIVATE PARTY WAS BASED UPON AN ERROR OF LAW AND WAS IRRATIONAL (FIRST DEPT))/LANDMARKS (NYC LANDMARKS PRESERVATION LAW NYC LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION’S DECISION THAT IT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REGULATE THE MECHANISM OF AND ACCESS TO A LANDMARK NINETEENTH CENTURY CLOCKTOWER WHICH HAD BEEN PURCHASED BY A PRIVATE PARTY WAS BASED UPON AN ERROR OF LAW AND WAS IRRATIONAL (FIRST DEPT))/CLOCKTOWER  (NYC LANDMARKS PRESERVATION LAW NYC LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION’S DECISION THAT IT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REGULATE THE MECHANISM OF AND ACCESS TO A LANDMARK NINETEENTH CENTURY CLOCKTOWER WHICH HAD BEEN PURCHASED BY A PRIVATE PARTY WAS BASED UPON AN ERROR OF LAW AND WAS IRRATIONAL (FIRST DEPT))

,

NYS COMPTROLLER HAS THE CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY RIGHT TO SUBPOENA PATIENT BILLING RECORDS FROM HEALTH SERVICES PROVIDERS PAID UNDER THE STATE’S EMPIRE PLAN TO FACILITATE AN AUDIT, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the NYS Comptroller had the power to issue a subpoena for patients’ billing records as part of an audit of a health services provider paid under the state’s Empire Plan. Neither the CPLR, which governs the confidentiality of medical records sought in discovery as part of litigation, nor the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), precluded the Comptroller from accessing the billing records:

​

We find that, contrary to petitioner’s claims and the holding of Supreme Court, the subpoena was validly issued in furtherance of [the Comptroller’s] constitutional and statutory authority and obligation to audit payments made by the state for medical services provided under the Empire Plan … . In Matter of Martin H. Handler, M.D., P.C. v DiNapoli (23 NY3d at 242-243, 245-248) … the Court of Appeals outlined … the obligations of participating and nonparticipating health care providers with regard to billing patients, and [the Comptroller’s] independent authority and obligation to audit the state’s payments to both categories of providers. As the Court of Appeals outlined, respondent is constitutionally obligated to audit state payments to health insurance vendors … . …

​

The plain language of CPLR 3122 (a) (1) and (2), read together, makes clear that the provisions apply to subpoenas issued during the discovery phase of litigation, and are not applicable to the subpoena issued by [the Comptroller] here pursuant to its authority under State Finance Law § 9 … . …

​

… HIPAA’s privacy regulations provide that “[a] covered entity may disclose protected health information to a health oversight agency for oversight activities authorized by law, including audits; civil, administrative, or criminal investigations; . . . criminal proceedings or actions; or other activities necessary for appropriate oversight of . . . [e]ntities subject to government regulatory programs for which health information is necessary for determining compliance with program standards,” without the written authorization of the patient … . Matter of The Plastic Surgery Group, P.C. v Comptroller of The State of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 08247, Third Dept 11-22-17

 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (NYS COMPTROLLER, AUDIT OF HEALTH SERVICES PROVIDERS, NYS COMPTROLLER HAS THE CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY RIGHT TO SUBPOENA PATIENT BILLING RECORDS FROM HEALTH SERVICES PROVIDERS PAID UNDER THE STATE’S EMPIRE PLAN TO FACILITATE AN AUDIT, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE  (NYS COMPTROLLER, AUDIT OF HEALTH SERVICES PROVIDERS, NYS COMPTROLLER HAS THE CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY RIGHT TO SUBPOENA PATIENT BILLING RECORDS FROM HEALTH SERVICES PROVIDERS PAID UNDER THE STATE’S EMPIRE PLAN TO FACILITATE AN AUDIT, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))/COMPTROLLER AUDIT OF HEALTH SERVICES PROVIDERS, NYS COMPTROLLER HAS THE CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY RIGHT TO SUBPOENA PATIENT BILLING RECORDS FROM HEALTH SERVICES PROVIDERS PAID UNDER THE STATE’S EMPIRE PLAN TO FACILITATE AN AUDIT, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))/PATIENT BILLING RECORDS  (NYS COMPTROLLER, AUDIT OF HEALTH SERVICES PROVIDERS, NYS COMPTROLLER HAS THE CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY RIGHT TO SUBPOENA PATIENT BILLING RECORDS FROM HEALTH SERVICES PROVIDERS PAID UNDER THE STATE’S EMPIRE PLAN TO FACILITATE AN AUDIT, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE  (NYS COMPTROLLER, AUDIT OF HEALTH SERVICES PROVIDERS, NYS COMPTROLLER HAS THE CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY RIGHT TO SUBPOENA PATIENT BILLING RECORDS FROM HEALTH SERVICES PROVIDERS PAID UNDER THE STATE’S EMPIRE PLAN TO FACILITATE AN AUDIT, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))/CPLR 3122 (NYS COMPTROLLER, AUDIT OF HEALTH SERVICES PROVIDERS, NYS COMPTROLLER HAS THE CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY RIGHT TO SUBPOENA PATIENT BILLING RECORDS FROM HEALTH SERVICES PROVIDERS PAID UNDER THE STATE’S EMPIRE PLAN TO FACILITATE AN AUDIT, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))/HIPAA  (NYS COMPTROLLER, AUDIT OF HEALTH SERVICES PROVIDERS, NYS COMPTROLLER HAS THE CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY RIGHT TO SUBPOENA PATIENT BILLING RECORDS FROM HEALTH SERVICES PROVIDERS PAID UNDER THE STATE’S EMPIRE PLAN TO FACILITATE AN AUDIT, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))

,

PROCEEDING UNDER REVIEW WAS NOT QUASI-JUDICIAL, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE STANDARD DID NOT APPLY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the “substantial evidence” standard did not apply to review of the Unified Court System’s finding that the court assistant (petitioner) was not asked to do out-of-title work. The “arbitrary and capricious” standard was the proper one:

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, “a substantial evidence’ question is presented only where a quasi-judicial evidentiary hearing has been held”… . The fact that the petitioner had the “right to be heard . . . and to present facts in support of [his] position” at a grievance meeting …did not render the grievance meeting “a quasi-judicial proceeding involving the cross-examination of witnesses and the making of a record within the meaning of CPLR 7803(4)”… . Since the administrative determination in this case was made after a grievance meeting, as opposed to a quasi-judicial evidentiary hearing, the court properly concluded that the relevant standard of review was whether the “determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law, or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion” … .

The petitioner further contends that the Deputy Director’s determination was arbitrary and capricious. “An action is arbitrary and capricious when it is taken without sound basis in reason or regard to the facts” … . “In applying the arbitrary and capricious’ standard, a court inquires whether the determination under review had a rational basis” … . Matter of Manning v New York State-Unified Ct. Sys., 2017 NY Slip Op 06077, Second Dept 8-9-17

 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (EVIDENCE, PROCEEDING UNDER REVIEW WAS NOT QUASI-JUDICIAL, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE STANDARD DID NOT APPLY (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, PROCEEDING UNDER REVIEW WAS NOT QUASI-JUDICIAL, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE STANDARD DID NOT APPLY (SECOND DEPT))/SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE (ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, PROCEEDING UNDER REVIEW WAS NOT QUASI-JUDICIAL, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE STANDARD DID NOT APPLY (SECOND DEPT))/ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS (ADMINISTRATIVE LAW,  PROCEEDING UNDER REVIEW WAS NOT QUASI-JUDICIAL, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE STANDARD DID NOT APPLY (SECOND DEPT))/QUASI-JUDICIAL (ADMINISTRATIVE LAW,  PROCEEDING UNDER REVIEW WAS NOT QUASI-JUDICIAL, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE STANDARD DID NOT APPLY (SECOND DEPT))

,

ENTIRELY HEARSAY EVIDENCE SUPPORTED THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY’S ABUSE FINDING 3RD DEPT.

The Third Department determined abuse findings were supported by substantial evidence, which was entirely hearsay. The court explained how hearsay is evaluated in the context of a ruling by an administrative agency, here the Justice Center for the Protection of People with Special Needs. Petitioner is an employee of the Office of People with Developmental Disabilities and was accused of abusing a service recipient. It was alleged petitioner held the service recipient down while another employee, Roberts, kicked her:

Petitioner contends that hearsay evidence cannot prevail over credible sworn testimony adduced at an administrative hearing. However, it is well established that “an administrative determination may be based entirely upon hearsay evidence provided such evidence is sufficiently relevant and probative or sufficiently reliable and is not otherwise seriously controverted” … . In addition, an administrative determination may be based entirely on such hearsay evidence even where there is contrary sworn testimony … .

Here, there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Justice Center’s final determination that petitioner engaged in conduct constituting category three abuse. In interviews conducted by an investigator, three eyewitnesses to the incident — two residents of the unit and Monica Sutton, a service provider — made consistent statements about the material facts of the incident, specifically, that petitioner restrained the service recipient on the floor while she was kicked by Roberts. Although the eyewitness statements received at the hearing were hearsay, there were sufficient indicia of their reliability. The accounts of the eyewitnesses, who were interviewed separately, are consistent with each other, and, as noted by the Justice Center, were “unwavering as to the core allegations.” Further, the statements from the residents were obtained in personal interviews conducted only three days after the incident, and, although Sutton’s statement was obtained approximately four months after the incident, it is corroborated by the written report of abuse that she made on the date of the incident. Notably, petitioner and Roberts each testified that Sutton witnessed the incident and, although each denied that Roberts kicked the service recipient, both admitted that the service recipient fell to the floor, where she grabbed Roberts by the legs, Roberts moved her legs in an effort to free herself, and petitioner touched or held the service recipient by the shoulder when she was on the floor; these admissions are consistent with the eyewitness reports. Accordingly, the hearsay evidence in the record was sufficiently reliable to provide substantial evidence to support the Justice Center’s determination. Matter of Watson v New York State Justice Ctr. for The Protection of People With Special Needs, 2017 NY Slip Op 05780, 3rd Dept 7-20-17

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (EVIDENCE, HEARSAY, ENTIRELY HEARSAY EVIDENCE SUPPORTED THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY’S ABUSE FINDING 3RD DEPT)/EVIDENCE (ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, HEARSAY, ENTIRELY HEARSAY EVIDENCE SUPPORTED THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY’S ABUSE FINDING 3RD DEPT)/HEARSAY (ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, ENTIRELY HEARSAY EVIDENCE SUPPORTED THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY’S ABUSE FINDING 3RD DEPT)

,

CAP ON STATE MEDICAID FUNDS USED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS AND EXECUTIVE PAY PROPERLY PROMULGATED BY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, CAP ON EXECUTIVE PAY FROM ALL SOURCES EXCEEDED DOH’S REGULATORY AUTHORITY.

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Peters, over a partial concurrence/dissent, determined the Department of Health’s (DOH’s) regulations placing caps on expenditure of state Medicaid funds for administrative costs and executive pay were properly promulgated. However, placing a cap on executive pay from all sources (called the “soft cap”) was deemed to exceed the Department of Health’s authority (disagreeing with the 2nd Department):

​

On balance, the Boreali factors weigh heavily in favor of DOH. Accordingly, we conclude that the subject regulations, to the extent that they place a limit on administrative costs and executive compensation paid for by state funds and state-authorized payments, do not violate the separation of powers doctrine… .

We reach a different conclusion, however, with regard to the soft cap provision … . The soft cap provision … restricts executive compensation paid from all sources except under certain circumstances. Absent a waiver, covered providers may not pay covered executives more than $199,000 from “any” sources of funding without incurring penalties unless (1) the amount of compensation is less than “the 75th percentile of that compensation provided to comparable executives in other providers of the same size and within the same program service sector and the same or comparable geographic area” based on a compensation survey recognized by the Division of the Budget, and (2) the amount has been reviewed and approved by the covered provider’s board of directors or equivalent governing body, and such review “include[d] an assessment of appropriate comparability data” … .

Applying the Boreali analysis, we part company with the [2nd] Department and find that … DOH exceeded its authority in adopting the soft cap portion of 10 NYCRR part 1002. First, by attempting to regulate executive compensation from all sources, DOH was acting on its own ideas of sound public policy. Relatedly, inasmuch as the soft cap provision ventures outside DOH’s legislative mandate to manage the efficient and effective use of taxpayer money for health care and related services, DOH was not engaged in mere interstitial rulemaking … . Finally, DOH has no special expertise in administering regulations governing the overall executive compensation or competence in regulating corporate governance as such. Matter of Leadingage N.Y., Inc. v Shah, 2017 NY Slip Op 05136, 3rd Dept 6-22-17

 

MEDICAID (CAP ON STATE MEDICAID FUNDS USED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS AND EXECUTIVE PAY PROPERLY PROMULGATED BY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, CAP ON EXECUTIVE PAY FROM ALL SOURCES EXCEEDED DOH’S REGULATORY AUTHORITY)/ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (MEDICAID, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, CAP ON STATE MEDICAID FUNDS USED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS AND EXECUTIVE PAY PROPERLY PROMULGATED BY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, CAP ON EXECUTIVE PAY FROM ALL SOURCES EXCEEDED DOH’S REGULATORY AUTHORITY)/DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (MEDICAID, CAP ON STATE MEDICAID FUNDS USED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS AND EXECUTIVE PAY PROPERLY PROMULGATED BY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, CAP ON EXECUTIVE PAY FROM ALL SOURCES EXCEEDED DOH’S REGULATORY AUTHORITY)/EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION (MEDICAID, CAP ON STATE MEDICAID FUNDS USED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS AND EXECUTIVE PAY PROPERLY PROMULGATED BY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, CAP ON EXECUTIVE PAY FROM ALL SOURCES EXCEEDED DOH’S REGULATORY AUTHORITY)

,

HEARSAY CONSTITUTED SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND SUPPORTED THE ABUSE REPORT.

The Third Department determined hearsay evidence constituted substantial evidence and supported a finding that petitioner abused a resident of a facility operated by the Office of People with Developmental Disabilities (OPWDD). A statement from an eyewitness was the challenged hearsay:

​

… [I]t is well established that, in an administrative hearing, hearsay is admissible and may support a finding of substantial evidence … Further, hearsay evidence “may, under appropriate circumstances, form the sole basis of an agency’s determination, unless the hearsay evidence is seriously controverted” … . Here, the corroborated description of the incident by the eyewitness was only controverted by petitioner’s denial that he punched the victim. Petitioner’s acknowledgment that he engaged in horseplay with the victim that morning, combined with his statements on two other occasions that he did not recall whether he punched the victim, presented credibility questions for the Justice Center to resolve … . Consequently, the Justice Center could view the corroborated description by the eyewitness as not seriously controverted and “sufficiently reliable” so as to constitute substantial evidence … . Matter of Cauthen v New York State Justice Ctr. for the Protection of People with Special Needs, 2017 NY Slip Op 05147, 3rd Dept 6-22-17

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (EVIDENCE, HEARSAY, HEARSAY CONSTITUTED SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND SUPPORTED THE ABUSE REPORT)/EVIDENCE (ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, HEARSAY CONSTITUTED SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND SUPPORTED THE ABUSE REPORT)/HEARSAY (ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, HEARSAY CONSTITUTED SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND SUPPORTED THE ABUSE REPORT)

, ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RELIED ON AN AUTHORIZATION LETTER WHICH WAS NOT IN THE RECORD TO FIND THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE WAS AUTHORIZED TO CONDUCT THE DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING WHICH RESULTED IN THE TERMINATION OF A CORRECTIONS OFFICER.

The Second Department noted that the administrative law judge (ALJ) in this action which resulted in the termination of petitioner’s employment as a corrections officer must be authorized to conduct the disciplinary proceedings by the commissioner of corrections. The petitioner contested his termination on the ground the ALJ was not so authorized. Supreme Court relied upon a letter of authorization which was not in the record. The Second Department held that was error and remitted the matter to allow the respondent to submit an authorization letter:

Civil Service Law § 75, which governs the procedure applicable to the subject disciplinary proceeding, provides that “[t]he hearing upon such charges shall be held by the officer or body having the power to remove the person against whom such charges are preferred, or by a deputy or other person designated by such officer or body in writing for that purpose” (Civil Service Law § 75[2]). In the absence of a written designation, the removing body or hearing officer has no jurisdiction to recommend the discipline of an employee and any disposition flowing from such a proceeding will be void … . This jurisdictional defect is not waived by a petitioner’s failure to object at a disciplinary hearing … .

Here, in denying the petition and dismissing the CPLR article 78 proceeding, the Supreme Court erred in considering and relying upon the 1992 letter as a written designation pursuant to Civil Service Law § 75(2) since that letter was outside the record, and was not relied upon by the respondents, whose papers were rejected by the court … .

Moreover, the Supreme Court also erred in not considering the respondents’ cross motion to dismiss the petition. Pursuant to CPLR 404(a), the respondents were permitted to raise objections in point of law by a motion to dismiss the petition. Given the improper rejection of the respondents’ papers and the particular circumstances of this case, the court should have afforded the respondents an opportunity to submit a designation letter conferring jurisdiction upon the ALJ who conducted the subject disciplinary hearing prior to determining the petition on the merits. Matter of Lindo v Ponte, 2017 NY Slip Op 04282, 2nd Dept 5-31-17

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RELIED ON AN AUTHORIZATION LETTER WHICH WAS NOT IN THE RECORD TO FIND THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE WAS AUTHORIZED TO CONDUCT THE DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING WHICH RESULTED IN THE TERMINATION OF A CORRECTIONS OFFICER)/EMPLOYMENT LAW (CIVIL SERVICE LAW, CORRECTIONS OFFICERS, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RELIED ON AN AUTHORIZATION LETTER WHICH WAS NOT IN THE RECORD TO FIND THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE WAS AUTHORIZED TO CONDUCT THE DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING WHICH RESULTED IN THE TERMINATION OF A CORRECTIONS OFFICER)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (CIVIL SERVICE LAW, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RELIED ON AN AUTHORIZATION LETTER WHICH WAS NOT IN THE RECORD TO FIND THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE WAS AUTHORIZED TO CONDUCT THE DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING WHICH RESULTED IN THE TERMINATION OF A CORRECTIONS OFFICER)/CORRECTIONS OFFICER (DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RELIED ON AN AUTHORIZATION LETTER WHICH WAS NOT IN THE RECORD TO FIND THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE WAS AUTHORIZED TO CONDUCT THE DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING WHICH RESULTED IN THE TERMINATION OF A CORRECTIONS OFFICER)/ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES (CORRECTIONS OFFICERS, DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RELIED ON AN AUTHORIZATION LETTER WHICH WAS NOT IN THE RECORD TO FIND THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE WAS AUTHORIZED TO CONDUCT THE DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING WHICH RESULTED IN THE TERMINATION OF A CORRECTIONS OFFICER)/CIVIL SERVICE LAW (EMPLOYMENT LAW, DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS, CORRECTIONS OFFICERS, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RELIED ON AN AUTHORIZATION LETTER WHICH WAS NOT IN THE RECORD TO FIND THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE WAS AUTHORIZED TO CONDUCT THE DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING WHICH RESULTED IN THE TERMINATION OF A CORRECTIONS OFFICER)

,

DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES REGULATIONS ALLOWING A 25 YEAR LOOK BACK FOR CERTAIN DRIVERS WITH DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED CONVICTIONS WERE LAWFULLY PROMULGATED AND APPLIED.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, affirming the Appellate Division, determined the regulations promulgated by the Commissioner of the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) and the application of those regulations to the petitioners were lawful. Petitioners challenged certain DMV regulations pursuant to which their applications for driver’s licenses, which had been revoked for Driving While Intoxicated offenses, were denied. Applying the Boreali criteria, the court found the Commissioner did not exceed her rule-making powers. The court further found the regulations did not conflict with the relevant statutes and there was a rational basis for the Commissioner’s denial of the license applications:

​

The amendments at issue in these appeals (the Regulations) were adopted as emergency regulations in September 2012 and took effect immediately. In relevant part, the Regulations provide that, “[u]pon receipt of a person’s application for relicensing, the Commissioner shall conduct a lifetime review of such person’s driving record” (15 NYCRR 136.5 [b]). The Commissioner “shall deny the application” if “the record review shows that”: (1) the applicant has “five or more alcohol- or drug-related driving convictions or incidents in any combination within his or her lifetime,” (15 NYCRR 136.5 [b] [1]) or (2) within a “25 year look back period,” the applicant “has three or four alcohol- or drug-related driving convictions or incidents in any combination” and “one or more serious driving offense” (15 NYCRR 136.5 [b] [2]). A “serious driving offense” includes: (i) “a fatal accident”; (ii) “a driving-related Penal Law conviction”; (iii) “conviction of two or more violations for which five or more points are assessed” on the applicant’s driving record; or (iv) “20 or more points from any violations” (15 NYCRR 136.5 [a] [2]).

For applicants with “three or four alcohol- or drug-related driving convictions or incidents in any combination within the 25 year look back period but no serious driving offenses within the 25 year look back period,” the Regulations provide that the Commissioner “shall deny the application for at least five years” in addition to the minimum statutory revocation period (15 NYCRR 136.5 [b] [3]). Following the expiration of this five-year waiting period, “the Commissioner may in his or her discretion approve the application, provided that upon such approval, the Commissioner shall impose the A2 restriction on such person’s license for a period of five years and shall require the installation of an ignition interlock device in any motor vehicle owned or operated by such person for such five-year period” (id.). An A2 restricted license is limited to operation to and from specified destinations — for instance, “the holder’s place of employment or education” (see 15 NYCRR 135.9 [b]; 15 NYCRR 3.2 [c] [4]).

The Commissioner is expressly permitted to “deviate from the general policy” set forth in the Regulations “in the exercise of discretionary authority granted” under the VTL (15 NYCRR 136.5 [d]). Specifically, the Commissioner may approve a relicensing application based on a showing of “unusual, extenuating and compelling circumstances,” in which case “the applicant may be issued a license or permit with a problem driver restriction . . . and may be required to install an ignition interlock device” (id.). Matter of Acevedo v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs., 2017 NY Slip Op 03690, CtApp 5-9-17

 

VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED, LICENSE REVOCATION, DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES REGULATIONS ALLOWING A 25 YEAR LOOK BACK FOR CERTAIN DRIVERS WITH DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED CONVICTIONS WERE LAWFULLY PROMULGATED AND APPLIED)/DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED (LICENSE REVOCATION, DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES REGULATIONS ALLOWING A 25 YEAR LOOK BACK FOR CERTAIN DRIVERS WITH DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED CONVICTIONS WERE LAWFULLY PROMULGATED AND APPLIED)/DRIVE’S LICENSES (LICENSE REVOCATION, DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES REGULATIONS ALLOWING A 25 YEAR LOOK BACK FOR CERTAIN DRIVERS WITH DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED CONVICTIONS WERE LAWFULLY PROMULGATED AND APPLIED)/ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED, LICENSE REVOCATION, DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES REGULATIONS ALLOWING A 25 YEAR LOOK BACK FOR CERTAIN DRIVERS WITH DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED CONVICTIONS WERE LAWFULLY PROMULGATED AND APPLIED)/MOTOR VEHICLES, DEPARTMENT OF  (DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED, LICENSE REVOCATION, DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES REGULATIONS ALLOWING A 25 YEAR LOOK BACK FOR CERTAIN DRIVERS WITH DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED CONVICTIONS WERE LAWFULLY PROMULGATED AND APPLIED)/BOREALI CRITERIA (ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED, LICENSE REVOCATION, DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES REGULATIONS ALLOWING A 25 YEAR LOOK BACK FOR CERTAIN DRIVERS WITH DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED CONVICTIONS WERE LAWFULLY PROMULGATED AND APPLIED)

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