Administrative Law – Page 30 – New York Appellate Digest

Administrative Law, Contempt, Criminal Law

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))

February 7, 2018

Administrative Law, Employment Law, Human Rights 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).

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))

January 17, 2018

Administrative Law, Constitutional Law, Education-School Law

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))

January 11, 2018

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).

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))

January 9, 2018

Administrative Law, Civil Procedure, Environmental Law

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))

December 27, 2017

Administrative Law, Municipal 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))

December 19, 2017

Administrative Law, Evidence

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))

December 6, 2017

Administrative Law, Environmental Law, Municipal 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).

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))

November 30, 2017

Administrative Law, Civil Procedure

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))

November 22, 2017

Administrative Law, Evidence

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))

August 9, 2017