You are here: / Administrative Law

NYS OFFICE OF PARKS, RECREATION AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION DID NOT EXCEED ITS AUTHORITY WHEN IT PROHIBITED SMOKING IN SOME SMALL PARKS WITHIN NEW YORK CITY AND ON A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE 330,000-ACRE PARK SYSTEM.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, determined the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) did not exceed its authority when it prohibited smoking in seven small parks in New York City and in less than five percent of the 330,000-acre state park system. The court went through the factors outlined in Boreali v Axelrod, 71 NY2d 1, which were described as follows:

… [Under Boreali] the circumstances to be considered are whether (1) “the agency did more than balanc[e] costs and benefits according to preexisting guidelines,' but instead made value judgments entail[ing] difficult and complex choices between broad policy goals' to resolve social problems” … ; (2) “the agency merely filled in details of a broad policy or if it wrote on a clean slate, creating its own comprehensive set of rules without benefit of legislative guidance' ” …; (3) “the legislature has unsuccessfully tried to reach agreement on the issue, which would indicate that the matter is a policy consideration for the elected body to resolve” …; and (4) “the agency used special expertise or competence in the field to develop the challenged regulation[]” … .

Our statement of the relevant principles of law does not end with the articulation of the Boreali factors. Those considerations, we have observed, are not to be applied rigidly … . In fact, they “are not mandatory, need not be weighed evenly, and are essentially guidelines for conducting an analysis of an agency's exercise of power” … . Indeed, “we treat the circumstances as overlapping, closely related factors that, taken together, support the conclusion that an agency has crossed th[e] line [into legislative territory]” … . We also “center [any Boreali analysis] on the theme that it is the province of the people's elected representatives, rather than appointed administrators, to resolve difficult social problems by making choices among competing ends' “… . Matter of NYC C.L.A.S.H., Inc. v New York State Off. of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preserv., 2016 NY Slip Op 02479, CtApp 3-31-16

ADMINSITRATIVE LAW (NYS OFFICE OF PARKS, RECREATION AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION DID NOT EXCEED ITS AUTHORITY WHEN IT PROHIBITED SMOKING IN SOME SMALL PARKS WITHIN NEW YORK CITY AND ON A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE 330,000-ACRE PARK SYSTEM)/STATE PARKS (NYS OFFICE OF PARKS, RECREATION AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION DID NOT EXCEED ITS AUTHORITY WHEN IT PROHIBITED SMOKING IN SOME SMALL PARKS WITHIN NEW YORK CITY AND ON A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE 330,000-ACRE PARK SYSTEM)/SMOKING PROHIBITION (NYS OFFICE OF PARKS, RECREATION AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION DID NOT EXCEED ITS AUTHORITY WHEN IT PROHIBITED SMOKING IN SOME SMALL PARKS WITHIN NEW YORK CITY AND ON A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE 330,000-ACRE PARK SYSTEM)

,

COLLEGE’S DETERMINATION WAS NOT ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS; AGENCY’S RATIONAL RULING MUST BE UPHELD EVEN IF THE REVIEWING COURT WOULD HAVE DECIDED DIFFERENTLY.

The Fourth Department determined Supreme Court should not have anulled the respondent college’s ruling as arbitrary and capricious. The controversy concerned the hiring of a business manager by the student government (Brockport Student Government or BSG). Although BSG had the power to hire a manager at approximately $50,000 a year, the college, which must ultimately approve the hiring, rejected it and engaged a managing service for $20,000 less. Because the college’s ruling had a rational basis, it could not be deemed arbitrary and capricious simply because the reviewing court would have decided differently. The Fourth Department explained what “arbitrary and capricious” means:

 

…[T]the court erred in determining that their denial of BSG’s budget allocation for a business manager was arbitrary and capricious. It is well established that “[a]n action is arbitrary and capricious when it is taken without sound basis in reason or regard to the facts . . . An agency’s determination is entitled to great deference and, [i]f the [reviewing] court finds that the determination is supported by a rational basis, it must sustain the determination even if the court concludes that it would have reached a different result than the one reached by the agency” … . Here, we conclude that respondents’ discretionary determination to reject BSG’s proposed $49,800 salary for a business manager which was based on a comparison of the “hiring practices and compensation rates of other campus-affiliated organizations”… . Matter of Brockport Student Govt. v State Univ. of N.Y. at Brockport, 2016 NY Slip Op 01099, 4th Dept 2-11-16

 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (AGENCY’S RATIONAL RULING MUST BE UPHELD EVEN IF REVIEWING COURT WOULD HAVE DECIDED DIFFERENTLY)/EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (COLLEGE’S REJECTION OF REQUEST BY STUDENT GOVERNMENT HAD A RATIONAL BASIS AND THEREFORE WAS NOT ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS)/ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS (RATIONAL RULING MUST BE UPHELD EVEN IF REVIEWING COURT WOULD HAVE DECIDED DIFFERENTLY)

,

SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT REVOCATION OF PETITIONER’S DRIVER’S LICENSE FOR REFUSING TO SUBMIT TO A CHEMICAL BLOOD-ALCOHOL TEST; TROOPER DID NOT HAVE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE PETITIONER OPERATED HIS MOTORCYCLE UNDER THE INFLUENCE.

The Second Department annulled the determination by the Department of Motor Vehicles that petitioner’s license was properly revoked for refusing to submit to a chemical blood-alcohol test. Petitioner had an accident while riding his motorcycle which, he alleged, was caused by a coyote running into his bike. No other vehicles were involved. The trooper who charged petitioner with driving while intoxicated did not witness the accident or conduct any sobriety tests. The trooper based the charge solely on detecting the odor of alcohol on petitioner’s breath two hours after the accident at the hospital. The Second Department determined substantial evidence did not support the Department’s finding the trooper had reasonable grounds to believe petitioner was operating the motorcycle while under the influence:

 

As a prerequisite to the chemical test, the Trooper had to have reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner was operating his motorcycle while under the influence of alcohol (see Vehicle Traffic Law § 1194[2]). Reasonable grounds are to be determined on the basis of the totality of the circumstances (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194[2][a][3]). Here, the Trooper did not witness the circumstances leading to the accident or the accident itself, and his report states that no field sobriety tests were conducted at the scene. Other than the statement in the report that there was a strong odor of alcoholic beverage on the petitioner’s breath, there was no evidence that would suggest the petitioner operated his vehicle in an intoxicated state … . Accordingly, the totality of circumstances did not warrant the determination that the petitioner violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 by refusing to submit to a chemical test and to revoke the petitioner’s driver license. Matter of DeMichele v Department of Motor Vehs. of N.Y. State, 2016 NY Slip Op 00652, 2nd Dept 2-3-16

 

ADMINSTRATIVE LAW (VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT REVOCATION OF LICENSE BASED ON CHEMICAL TEST REFUSAL)/DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED (SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT REVOCATION OF LICENSE BASED ON CHEMICAL TEST REFUSAL)/CHEMICAL TEST (DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT REVOCATION OF LICENSE BASED ON CHEMICAL TEST REFUSAL)

, ,

EXCEPTION TO FINALITY RULE WHERE IT IS CLEAR FURTHER ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS WOULD BE FUTILE; DEVELOPER DID NOT HAVE A PROPERTY INTEREST IN A SITE PLAN APPROVAL WHICH WOULD SUPPORT A VIOLATION-OF-DUE-PROCESS CAUSE OF ACTION.

In finding the town planning board’s motion for summary judgment on several causes of action brought by respondent developer should have been granted, the Second Department explained (1) the finality rule need not be mechanically applied where it is clear further administrative proceedings would be futile, and (2) the developer did not have a property interest in a site plan approval which would support a violation-of-due-process cause of action:

 

“To determine whether a matter is ripe for judicial review, it is necessary first to determine whether the issues tendered are appropriate for judicial resolution, and second to assess the hardship to the parties if judicial relief is denied'” … . “The concept of finality requires an examination of the completeness of the administrative action and a pragmatic evaluation of whether the decision-maker has arrived at a definitive position on the issue that inflicts an actual, concrete injury'” … .

In the area of land use, “[a] final decision exists when a development plan has been submitted, considered and rejected by the governmental entity with the power to implement zoning regulations” … . In this regard, “[a] property owner, for example, will be excused from obtaining a final decision if pursuing an appeal to a zoning board of appeals or seeking a variance would be futile. That is, a property owner need not pursue such applications when a zoning agency lacks discretion to grant variances or has dug in its heels and made clear that all such applications will be denied” … . Additionally, an exception to the finality requirement exists where the municipal entity uses “repetitive and unfair procedures in order to avoid a final decision” … . …

[Respondent developer] alleged that it had a cognizable property interest in the approval of the application that was injured in violation of its right to due process under both the United States and New York State Constitutions. However, as the Planning Board has significant discretion in reviewing site plan applications … , East End does not have a cognizable property interest in the approval of a particular site plan application …. .  East End Resources, LLC v Town of Southold Planning Bd., 2016 NY Slip Op 00476, 2nd Dept 1-27-16

 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (FINALITY RULE NOT APPLIED WHERE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS FUTILE)/ZONING (DEVELOPER DID NOT HAVE PROPERTY INTEREST IN SITE PLAN APPROVAL)/DUE PROCESS (DEVELOPER DID NOT HAVE PROPERTY INTEREST IN SITE PLAN APPROVAL)/SITE PLAN (DEVELOPER DID NOT HAVE PROPERTY INTEREST IN SITE PLAN APPROVAL)

,

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH EXECUTIVE-COMPENSATION-CAP AND CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST RULES FOR AGENCIES PROVIDING SERVICES TO DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED CHILDREN DO NOT VIOLATE THE SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dickerson, reversing Supreme Court, determined that two Department of Health (DOH) rules concerning services provided to developmentally disabled children did not violate the separation of powers doctrine. One rule placed a cap on executive compensation, and the other prohibited an agency which evaluates a child’s need for services from itself providing those services (“conflict of interest” rule). The First Department explained the underlying general principles and then went through each of the Boreali [71 NY2d 1] “separation of powers” factors for each rule:

“The cornerstone of administrative law is derived from the principle that the Legislature may declare its will, and after fixing a primary standard, endow administrative agencies with the power to fill in the interstices in the legislative product by prescribing rules and regulations consistent with the enabling legislation” … . “The constitutional principle of separation of powers . . . requires that the [L]egislature make the critical policy decisions, while the executive branch’s responsibility is to implement those policies” … . “The branches of government cannot always be neatly divided, however, and common sense must be applied when reviewing a separation of powers challenge. As long as the [L]egislature makes the basic policy choices, the legislation need not be detailed or precise as to the agency’s role” … . Where an agency has been endowed with broad power to regulate in the public interest, courts generally will uphold reasonable acts that further the regulatory scheme … .

[The Boreali] factors are (1) “whether the agency did more than balanc[e] costs and benefits according to preexisting guidelines, but instead made value judgments entail[ing] difficult and complex choices between broad policy goals to resolve social problems”; (2) “whether the agency merely filled in details of a broad policy or if it wrote on a clean slate, creating its own comprehensive set of rules without benefit of legislative guidance”; (3) “whether the [L]egislature has unsuccessfully tried to reach agreement on the issue, which would indicate that the matter is a policy consideration for the elected body to resolve”; and (4) “whether the agency used special expertise or competence in the field to develop the challenged regulations” … . The “central theme” of a Boreali analysis is that “an administrative agency exceeds its authority when it makes difficult choices between public policy ends, rather than find[ing] means to an end chosen by the Legislature” … . Agencies for Children’s Therapy Servs., Inc. v New York State Dept. of Health,  2015 NY Slip Op 09647, 2nd Dept 12-30-15

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (SERVICES FOR DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED CHILDREN, DOH EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION CAP AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST RULES DO NOT VIOLATE SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE)/DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED CHILDREN, SERVICES FOR (DOH EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION CAP AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST RULES DO NOT VIOLATE SEPARARY OF POWERS)/DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION CAP AND CONFLICT OF INETERST RULES DO NOT VIOLATE SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE)/SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE (SERVICES FOR DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED CHILDREN, DOH EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION CAP AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST RULES DO NOT VIOLATE SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE)

,

INCONSISTENCIES IN TWO FINAL RENT-ADJUSTMENT ORDERS ALLOWED RECONSIDERATION OF THE NATURE OF THE MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS [MCI’S] DESCRIBED IN THE ORDERS

In a rent-increase matter which was before the NYS Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR), the First Department, over an extensive two-justice dissent, determined a discrepancy between two prior rent-adjustment orders constituted “an irregularity in a vital matter” which allowed the DHRC, on remand, to reconsider the two (final) orders. The discrepancy related to the nature of the “major capital improvement [MCI]” (purportedly justifying a rent increase) to which each order referred. The dissent argued that the two orders were final orders and collateral estoppel prohibited further reexamination of them. Matter of 60 E. 12th St. Tenants’ Assn. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 2015 NY Slip Op 09599, 1st Dept 12-29-15

 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (RECONSIDERATION OF INCONSISTENT FINAL ORDERS BY NYS DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL)/DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL [DHCR] (RECONSIDERATION OF INCONSISTENT FINAL RENT-ADJUSTMENT ORDERS) ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; LANDLORD-TENANT. .

,

INCONSISTENCIES IN TWO FINAL RENT-ADJUSTMENT ORDERS ALLOWED RECONSIDERATION OF THE NATURE OF THE MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS [MCI’S] DESCRIBED IN THE ORDERS.

In a rent-increase matter which was before the NYS Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR), the First Department, over an extensive two-justice dissent, determined a discrepancy between two prior rent-adjustment orders constituted “an irregularity in a vital matter” which allowed the DHRC, on remand, to reconsider the two (final) orders. The discrepancy related to the nature of the “major capital improvement [MCI]” (purportedly justifying a rent increase) to which each order referred. The dissent argued that the two orders were final orders and collateral estoppel prohibited further reexamination of them. Matter of 60 E. 12th St. Tenants’ Assn. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 2015 NY Slip Op 09599, 1st Dept 12-29-15

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (RECONSIDERATION OF INCONSISTENT FINAL ORDERS BY NYS DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL)/DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL [DHCR] (RECONSIDERATION OF INCONSISTENT FINAL RENT-ADJUSTMENT ORDERS)

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, DRIVER’S LICENSES. COMMISSIONER OF MOTOR VEHICLES HAS THE POWER TO DENY RELICENSING TO DRIVER CONVICTED OF DWI WHO HAD TWO SIX POINT SPEEDING TICKETS DURING THE LOOK-BACK PERIOD.

The Third Department, over a dissent, determined the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, pursuant to the new DWI relicensing regulations, properly refused to relicense petitioner, who had been convicted of three alcohol-related offenses during ten years, based upon two six point speeding tickets during the look-back period. The question presented was whether two five point speeding tickets could properly constitute a “serious driving offense” justifying a denial of relicensing. The majority concluded the relevant regulation was a valid exercise of the Commissioner’s powers. The court noted that the Commissioner has the discretion to grant a license under unusual, extenuating and compelling circumstances, but petitioner did not make an application under that provision:

In the broadest sense, 15 NYCRR part 136 was promulgated to “establish[] criteria to identify individual problem drivers,” that is, applicants for new licenses that “ha[ve] had a series of convictions, incidents and/or accidents . . . which in the judgment of the [C]ommissioner . . . upon review of the applicant’s entire driving history, establishes that the person would be an unusual and immediate risk upon the highways” (15 NYCRR 136.1 [a], [b] [1]). In developing these regulations, the Commissioner considered empirical data, which indicated that drivers with three or more alcohol- or drug-related driving convictions are involved in a disproportionate number of motor vehicle accidents. Accordingly, the Commissioner rationally determined that such drivers “pose the highest risk to the general population” (NY Reg, Mar. 13, 2013 at 43) and, thus, should not be granted new, unrestricted licenses until after a waiting period of several years (see 15 NYCRR 136.5 [b] [3], [4]). With that in mind, we cannot consider the Commissioner’s decision to subject such recidivist impaired or intoxicated drivers to a longer — or even a presumptively permanent — ban on relicensure to be arbitrary when, like petitioner, such drivers may independently qualify as “problem drivers” because of the presence of speeding or other violations on their driving records (see 15 NYCRR 136.1 [b] [1]; 136.5 [a] [2]; [b] [2]).

As for petitioner’s claim that her two six-point speeding violations during the 25-year look-back period are not serious enough to be expressly defined as a “serious driving offense” (see 15 NYCRR [a] [2] [iii]), we defer to the Commissioner’s determination, as it was made pursuant to her discretionary authority (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 510 [5], [6]), and it was within the area of expertise of the agency she headds … . Matter of Matsen v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs., 2015 NY Slip Op 09159, 3rd Dept 12-10-15

 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (DRIVER’S LICENSES, COMMISSIONER HAS POWER TO DENY RELICENSING A DRIVER CONVICTED OF DWI BASED UPON TWO FIVE-POINT SPEEDING TICKETS)/DRIVER’S LICENSES (RELICENSING OF DRIVER CONVICTED OF DWI CAN BE DENIED BASED UPON TWO FIVE POINT SPEEDING TICKETS)/SPEEDING TICKETS (TWO FIVE POINT SPEEDS CONSTITUTE A SERIOUS DRIVING OFFENSE FOR WHICH RELICENSING CAN BE DENIED TO A DRIVER CONVICTED OF DWI)/RELICENSING OF DRIVERS CONVICTED OF DWI (CAN BE DENIED BASED UPON TWO FIVE POINT SPEEDING TICKETS)

COMMISSIONER OF MOTOR VEHICLES HAS THE POWER TO DENY RELICENSING TO DRIVER CONVICTED OF DWI WHO HAD TWO SIX POINT SPEEDING TICKETS DURING THE LOOK-BACK PERIOD.

The Third Department, over a dissent, determined the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, pursuant to the new DWI relicensing regulations, properly refused to relicense petitioner, who had been convicted of three alcohol-related offenses during ten years, based upon two six point speeding tickets during the look-back period. The question presented was whether two five point speeding tickets could properly constitute a “serious driving offense” justifying a denial of relicensing. The majority concluded the relevant regulation was a valid exercise of the Commissioner’s powers. The court noted that the Commissioner has the discretion to grant a license under unusual, extenuating and compelling circumstances, but petitioner did not make an application under that provision:

In the broadest sense, 15 NYCRR part 136 was promulgated to “establish[] criteria to identify individual problem drivers,” that is, applicants for new licenses that “ha[ve] had a series of convictions, incidents and/or accidents . . . which in the judgment of the [C]ommissioner . . . upon review of the applicant’s entire driving history, establishes that the person would be an unusual and immediate risk upon the highways” (15 NYCRR 136.1 [a], [b] [1]). In developing these regulations, the Commissioner considered empirical data, which indicated that drivers with three or more alcohol- or drug-related driving convictions are involved in a disproportionate number of motor vehicle accidents. Accordingly, the Commissioner rationally determined that such drivers “pose the highest risk to the general population” (NY Reg, Mar. 13, 2013 at 43) and, thus, should not be granted new, unrestricted licenses until after a waiting period of several years (see 15 NYCRR 136.5 [b] [3], [4]). With that in mind, we cannot consider the Commissioner’s decision to subject such recidivist impaired or intoxicated drivers to a longer — or even a presumptively permanent — ban on relicensure to be arbitrary when, like petitioner, such drivers may independently qualify as “problem drivers” because of the presence of speeding or other violations on their driving records (see 15 NYCRR 136.1 [b] [1]; 136.5 [a] [2]; [b] [2]).

As for petitioner’s claim that her two six-point speeding violations during the 25-year look-back period are not serious enough to be expressly defined as a “serious driving offense” (see 15 NYCRR [a] [2] [iii]), we defer to the Commissioner’s determination, as it was made pursuant to her discretionary authority (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 510 [5], [6]), and it was within the area of expertise of the agency she heads … . Matter of Matsen v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs., 2015 NY Slip Op 09159, 3rd Dept 12-10-15

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (DRIVER’S LICENSES, COMMISSIONER HAS POWER TO DENY RELICENSING A DRIVER CONVICTED OF DWI BASED UPON TWO FIVE-POINT SPEEDING TICKETS)/DRIVER’S LICENSES (RELICENSING OF DRIVER CONVICTED OF DWI CAN BE DENIED BASED UPON TWO FIVE POINT SPEEDING TICKETS)/SPEEDING TICKETS (TWO FIVE POINT SPEEDS CONSTITUTE A SERIOUS DRIVING OFFENSE FOR WHICH RELICENSING CAN BE DENIED TO A DRIVER CONVICTED OF DWI)/RELICENSING OF DRIVERS CONVICTED OF DWI (CAN BE DENIED BASED UPON TWO FIVE POINT SPEEDING TICKETS)

,

New Relicensing Regulations Can Be Applied Retroactively (Re: Alcohol-Related Driving Convictions)

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles had the power to retroactively apply regulations re: the relicensing of persons with three or more alcohol-related driving convictions:

… [T]here is no merit to petitioner’s contention that the Commissioner erred in retroactively applying the amended regulations to his application … . “[P]etitioner’s driver’s license is not generally viewed as a vested right, but merely a personal privilege subject to reasonable restrictions and revocation by [the Commissioner] under her discretionary powers . . . Thus, [the Commissioner] remained free to apply her most recent regulations when exercising her discretion in deciding whether to grant or deny petitioner’s application for relicensing. This is especially so in light of the rational, seven-month moratorium placed on all similarly-situated applicants for relicensing— i.e., persons with three or more alcohol-related driving convictions” … . Matter of Underwood v Fiala, 2015 NY Slip Op 08545, 4th Dept 11-20-15

 

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