Administrative Law – Page 34 – New York Appellate Digest

Loud Argument With Another Teacher In Front of Students Did Not Justify an Unsatisfactory Rating and Discharge of Probationary Teacher

The First Department, over a dissent, determined the unsatisfactory rating (U-rating) for a probationary teacher lacked a rational basis and was arbitrary and capricious. Her termination, therefore, was based upon a deficiency in the review process which undermined its fairness. The U-rating and termination stemmed from a “loud” argument with another teacher in front of students. The majority concluded the evidence about the argument did not support a finding of insubordination and unprofessional conduct. The dissent argued there was a rational basis for the respondent’s rulings and, under the principles of administrative law, the court was powerless to substitute its own judgment:

We hold that the U-rating for the summer of 2011 lacked a rational basis and was arbitrary and capricious. Even accepting the testimony that petitioner engaged in a loud argument with another teacher about sharing a room, there is no rational basis to find petitioner’s conduct was unprofessional, insubordinate or unbecoming. Here, the subject of the argument concerned whether petitioner’s students with disabilities should share space with students that composed the art cluster or obtain a larger classroom. There was no evidence presented that the content of conversation itself was unprofessional. The simple conduct of an argument without more elaboration on how the subject and language of the conversation was unprofessional is insufficient to provide a rational basis for professional misconduct.

As to the termination of petitioner’s employment, it is well established that a “probationary employee may be discharged for any or no reason at all in the absence of a showing that [the] dismissal was in bad faith, for a constitutionally impermissible purpose or in violation of law” … . Nonetheless, given the failure to establish a rational basis for the summer 2011 U-rating, petitioner established a deficiency in the review process to terminate petitioner’s employment that was “not merely technical, but undermined the integrity and fairness of the process” … . Matter of Mendez v New York City Dept. of Educ., 2015 NY Slip Op 07599, 1st Dept 10-20-15

October 20, 2015

Petitioner-Employee Did Not Demonstrate the Union Breached Its Duty of Fair Representation, Therefore Petitioner Did Not Demonstrate an Exception to the “Exhaustion of Remedies” Pre-Requisite for an Article 78 Proceeding

The Second Department determined petitioner’s Article 78 action should have been dismissed because petitioner did not demonstrate an exception to the requirement that she exhaust all the grievance remedies provided by the collective bargaining agreement. Petitioner was terminated from her employment at a county community college:

Generally, an employee covered by a collective bargaining agreement which provides for a grievance procedure must exhaust administrative remedies prior to seeking judicial remedies … . However, the failure to exhaust administrative remedies may be excused where the employee can prove that the union breached its duty of fair representation in the handling of the employee’s grievance … . Breach of the duty of fair representation occurs only when a union’s conduct toward a member of the collective bargaining unit is arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith … . Here, the petitioner did not allege that the union’s conduct was arbitrary, discriminatory, or made in bad faith, and the record does not support such a conclusion … . Accordingly, as the petitioner failed to establish that an exception to the exhaustion doctrine was applicable, the Supreme Court should have denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding on the merits. Matter of McLaughlin v Hankin, 2015 NY Slip Op 07272, 2nd Dept 10-7-15

October 7, 2015

Administrative Law, Municipal Law

Courts’ Limited Review Powers Re: Administrative Rulings Clearly Illustrated

The Fourth Department, in a dispute about whether fiber optic cables were taxable by the city and the school district under the Real Property Tax Law, determined Supreme Court was powerless to rule on the matter on grounds not used by the administrative agencies which initially heard it. The Fourth Department succinctly explained the relevant review powers:

We agree with petitioners that the court erred in dismissing the petition on grounds different from those on which respondents relied in denying the applications. It is well settled that “[a] reviewing court, in dealing with a determination . . . which an administrative agency alone is authorized to make, must judge the propriety of such action solely by the grounds invoked by the agency. If those grounds are inadequate or improper, the court is powerless to affirm the administrative action by substituting what it considers to be a more adequate or proper basis” … . Thus, the court was without power to uphold the administrative determinations on a different basis, no matter how sound that basis may be.

Contrary to petitioners’ further contention, however, we may not grant the ultimate affirmative relief requested in the petition, i.e., removal of the subject properties from the tax rolls and a refund of the taxes paid. The Court of Appeals has noted that courts “regularly defer to the governmental agency charged with the responsibility for administration of [a] statute’ in those cases where interpretation or application involves knowledge and understanding of underlying operational practices or entails an evaluation of factual data and inferences to be drawn therefrom,’ and the agency’s interpretation is not irrational or unreasonable’ ” … . We conclude that “this case involves a question concerning the specific application of a broad statutory term, . . . and therefore is one in which the agency which administers the statute must determine it initially” … , because in such a situation, ” the reviewing court’s function is limited’ ” … . Matter of Level 3 Communications, LLC v Erie County, 2015 NY Slip Op 07104, 4th Dept 10-2-15

October 2, 2015

Administrative Law, Environmental Law

Town Board’s “Adverse Effects” Findings Annulled as Inconsistent with Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly annulled the town board’s findings that a project would have adverse environmental effects because the board’s findings were not consistent with the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). The court explained the board’s obligations and the courts’ review powers in this context:

Judicial review of an agency determination under SEQRA [State Environmental Quality Review Act] is limited to whether the agency procedures were lawful and “whether the agency identified the relevant areas of environmental concern, took a hard look’ at them, and made a reasoned elaboration’ of the basis for its determination” … . “In a statutory scheme whose purpose is that the agency decision-makers focus attention on environmental concerns, it is not the role of the courts to weigh the desirability of any action or choose among alternatives, but to assure that the agency itself has satisfied SEQRA, procedurally and substantively” … . The agency decision should be annulled only if it is arbitrary, capricious, or unsupported by the evidence … .

“The purpose of an environmental impact statement is to provide detailed information about the effect which a proposed action is likely to have on the environment, to list ways in which any adverse effects of such an action might be minimized, and to suggest alternatives to such an action so as to form the basis for a decision whether or not to undertake or approve such action” (ECL 8-0109[2]). In a findings statement, the lead agency “considers the relevant environmental impacts presented in an EIS, weighs and balances them with social, economic and other essential considerations, provides a rationale for the agency’s decision and certifies that the SEQRA requirements have been met” (6 NYCRR 617.2[p]…). Agencies have considerable latitude in evaluating environmental effects and choosing between alternatives … .

While an agency’s ultimate conclusion is within the discretion of the agency, it must be based upon factual evidence in the record and not generalized, speculative community objections … . “While an EIS does not require a public agency to act in any particular manner, it constitutes evidence which must be considered by the public agency along with other evidence which may be presented to such agency” … .

Here, the Supreme Court properly annulled the Board’s findings statement as unsupported by the evidence. The Board was required to render its conclusions regarding the sufficiency of mitigation measures, the propriety of permit approvals, and a balancing of considerations, based on the evidence contained in the environmental review. The Board’s conclusions in the findings statement were based, at least in part, on factual findings which were contradicted by the scientific and technical analyses included in the FEIS and not otherwise supported by empirical evidence in the record … .

The findings statement also failed to give sufficient consideration to the various alternative plans reviewed in the FEIS … . Matter of Falcon Group Ltd. Liab. Co. v Town/Village of Harrison Planning Bd., 2015 NY Slip Op 07025, 2nd Dept 9-30-15

September 30, 2015

Administrative Law, Medicaid, Social Services Law

Substantial Evidence Did Not Support Department of Health’s Finding that Property Transfers Rendered Petitioner Ineligible for Medicaid Benefits

The Second Department annulled the Department of Health’s (DOH’s) finding that petitioner was ineligible for Medicaid benefits based on transfers of property made well before she exhibited signs of dementia. The court explained the analytical criteria:

In reviewing a Medicaid eligibility determination made after a fair hearing, the court must review the record as a whole to determine if the agency’s decisions are supported by substantial evidence and are not affected by an error of law … . Substantial evidence has been defined as “such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact” … . While the level of proof is less than a preponderance of the evidence, substantial evidence does not arise from bare surmise, conjecture, speculation, or rumor (see id. at 180), or from the absence of evidence supporting a contrary conclusion … . When determining Medicaid eligibility, an agency is required to “look back” for a period of 60 months immediately preceding the first date the applicant was both “institutionalized” and had applied for Medicaid benefits to determine if any asset transfers were uncompensated or made for less than fair market value (42 USC § 1396p[c][1][A], [B]; Social Services Law § 366[5][e][1][vi]). If such a transfer was made during that period, the applicant may become ineligible for Medicaid benefits for a specified period of time (see 42 USC § 1396p[c][1][A], [E]; Social Services Law § 366[5][e][3]), unless there is a “satisfactory showing” that, inter alia, the assets were transferred exclusively for a purpose other than to qualify for medical assistance (42 USC § 1396p[c][2][C][i], [iii]; Social Services Law § 366[5][e][4][iii]). It is the petitioner’s burden to rebut the presumption that the transfer of funds was motivated, in part if not in whole, by anticipation of a future need to qualify for medical assistance … .

Here, the evidence at the fair hearing showed that the latest of the subject transfers was made approximately two years before the petitioner started to exhibit signs of dementia. At the time of the transfers and in the years preceding her need for nursing home care, the petitioner was in good health and living independently. She was driving, cooking, exercising, and paying her own bills. The transfers themselves constituted gifts to her relatives, and the petitioner still had more than $250,000, not including Social Security benefits, following the transfers. Under these circumstances, the petitioner met her burden of rebutting the presumption that the subject transfers were motivated by the anticipation of a future need to qualify for medical assistance … . Matter of Sandoval v Shah, 2015 NY Slip Op 07034, 2nd Dept 9-30-15

September 30, 2015

Administrative Law, Education-School Law

Principal’s Failure to Follow the Performance-Rating Procedures Required by the School District and Collective Bargaining Agreement Deprived a School Social Worker of a Fair Review Process—Unsatisfatory Rating (U-Rating) Annulled

The First Department determined the principal’s failure to comply with the relevant performance-rating procedures deprived petitioner, a school social worker, of a fair review process. Petitioner’s unsatisfactory rating (U-rating) was annulled:

Petitioner establishes that in evaluating her performance, respondents did not adhere to their procedures or those provided in the parties’ collective bargaining agreement. Special Circular No. 45, a memorandum issued by respondents in response to the mandate set forth in the Commissioner of Education Regulations (8 NYCRR) § 100.2(o), outlines the procedures for rating professional personnel, as does the related manual produced by the New York City Public Schools, entitled Rating Pedagogical Staff Members. Specifically, as a pedagogical employee, petitioner was to be given at least one full period of review during the school year by her principal, followed by a meeting with the principal to discuss her strengths and any areas in need of improvement. Additionally, as a social worker employed at a school, she should have been evaluated by the school principal in consultation with the in-discipline supervisor, in accordance with the collective bargaining agreement. * * *

…[T]he complete absence of constructive criticism and warnings during the entire school year, compounded by the lack of a formal observation and accompanying feedback during the school year, “undermined the integrity and fairness of the process” … . Accordingly, the judgment should be reversed, and the petition granted to the extent of annulling the U-rating. Matter of Murray v Board of Educ. of the City School Dist. of the City of N.Y., 2015 NY Slip Op 06866, 1st Dept 9-22-15

September 22, 2015

Administrative Law, Criminal Law, Pistol Permits

Licensing Officer Has Broad Discretion Re: Denial of Application for a Pistol Permit

In upholding the denial of an application for a pistol permit, the Second Department explained the broad discretion afforded the licensing officer:

Penal Law § 400.00(1), which sets forth the eligibility requirements for obtaining a pistol license, requires, inter alia, that the applicant be at least 21 years of age, of good moral character with no prior convictions of a felony or serious offense, who has not had a license revoked or who is not under a suspension or ineligibility order, and a person “concerning whom no good cause exists for the denial of the license” (Penal Law § 400.00[1][n]…). “A pistol licensing officer has broad discretion in ruling on permit applications and may deny an application for any good cause” (… see Penal Law § 400.00[1][n]…).

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the licensing officer’s determination that good cause existed to deny the application was not arbitrary and capricious. The determination was rationally based, inter alia, on the petitioner’s criminal history … . Moreover, the licensing officer, by her own observation, found that the petitioner had issues with judgment, credibility, the ability to stay in control, and general moral fitness. Matter of Lawtone-Bowles v Klein, 2015 NY Slip Op 06669, 2nd Dept 8-26-15

August 26, 2015

Administrative Law, Employment Law, Human Rights Law, Workers' Compensation

Sexual Harassment Findings Affirmed

The Third Department affirmed the State Division of Human Rights’ (SDHR’s) determination that respondent corrections officer had been subjected to sexual harassment (creating a hostile work environment) and was entitled to economic and noneconomic damages. The court noted that its review powers were “narrow” and were confined to whether the Commissioner of Human Rights’ rulings were rational in light of the evidence. The court further noted that the Commissioner should not have offset the award based upon past and future workers’ compensation benefits, and the commissioner should have considered respondent’s loss of pension benefits. In explaining its review criteria, the court wrote:

When reviewing a determination made by the Commissioner in a matter such as this one, our purview is “extremely narrow” and must focus not on whether we would have reached the same result as did the Commissioner, but instead on whether the Commissioner’s determination was rational in light of the evidence presented … . Such deference is due given SDHR’s expertise in evaluating discrimination claims … . A violation of Executive Law § 296 based on a hostile work environment must be supported by proof that the “workplace [was so] permeated [by a] discriminatory” atmosphere that it “alter[ed] the conditions of the [complainant’s] employment” … . “Where, as here, there is a finding of a hostile work environment as a result of sexual harassment, the evidence in the record must establish the pertinent elements, including proof that the discriminatory conduct occurred due to the complainant’s gender”… . Matter of Rensselaer County Sheriff’s Dept. v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 2015 NY Slip Op 06551, 3rd Dept 8-13-15

August 13, 2015

Administrative Law, Human Rights Law, Insurance Law, Workers' Compensation

Even Though the Insured Was Faultless, the “Additional Insureds” Endorsement Was Triggered—The Endorsement Covered Acts or Omissions by the Insured Which “Caused” the Underlying Injury Without Any Requirement that the “Cause” Entail Negligence—Here the Insured Was Not Negligent, but the Injury Was “Caused” by Insured’s Non-Negligent Acts—Therefore the Additional Insureds Were Covered Under the Policy

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Friedman, determined that the “additional insureds” endorsement in plaintiff-insurer’s policy did not have a “negligence trigger.” Therefore, even though it was demonstrated that the company insured under plaintiff-insurer’s policy was not negligent, the endorsement covered the “additional insureds” because there was a causal relationship between the insured’s acts and the underlying injury to a worker. The insured company, Breaking Solutions, was hired by the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) and the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) to break up concrete for a subway construction project. Plaintiff-insurer, Burlington Insurance Co. insured Breaking Solutions. The NYCTA and MTA were additional insureds under the policy. It was NYCTA’s responsibility to identify the location of electric cables and to shut off the power in the areas where Breaking Solutions was working. NYCTA failed to identify and shut off the power to a cable which was struck by Breaking Solutions’ excavation equipment resulting in an explosion. The plaintiff in the underlying personal injury action, an NYCTA employee, was injured by the explosion. The issue came down to the language of the “additional insureds” endorsement which referred only to injuries “caused” by the acts or omissions of the insured. Even though the probable intent of the drafters of the policy was to cover only “negligent” acts or omissions by the insured which “caused” the injury, the language of the endorsement could only be enforced as written. Because the worker’s injuries were “caused” by the (non-negligent) acts of the insured, the additional insureds (NYCTA and MTA) were covered under the terms of the policy:

While it is true that, because NYCTA had not warned the Breaking Solutions’ operator of the cable’s presence, Breaking Solutions’ “act[]” did not constitute negligence, this does not change the fact that the act of triggering the explosion, faultless though it was on Breaking Solutions’ part, was a cause of [the worker’s] injury. The language of the relevant endorsement, on its face, defines the additional insured coverage afforded in terms of whether the loss was “caused by” the named insured’s “acts or omissions,” without regard to whether those “acts or omissions” constituted negligence or were otherwise actionable. Burlington Ins. Co. v NYC Tr. Auth., 2015 NY Slip Op 06481, 1st Dept 8-11-15

August 11, 2015

Administrative Law, Vehicle and Traffic Law

Department of Motor Vehicles Did Not Exceed Its Powers In Promulgating Regulations Re: Lifetime Revocation of Driver’s Licenses, Five-Year Stay of Relicensure, and Subsequent Five-Year Restricted License/Ignition Interlock Period for Alcohol-Related Convictions

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Peters, over a two-justice dissent, determined that petitioner’s challenges to Department of Motor Vehicles’ (DMV’S) regulations re: (1) the lifetime revocation of a driver’s license for alcohol-related convictions, (2) the five-year stay of relicensure for persons with three alcohol-related convictions, and (3) the subsequent five-year period with the imposition of a restricted license and installation of ignition interlock device, were properly dismissed as nonjusticiable (petitioner not yet affected by any of them). The court went on to determine the DMV, by promulgating these regulations, did not encroach upon the powers of the legislature. The dissenters argued that some of the challenges were justiciable and the DMV in fact exceeded its powers by mandating a five-year stay of relicensure for anyone with three alcohol-related convictions within a 25-year lookback, as well as the subsequent five-year period allowing only a restricted license with the installation of an ignition interlock device. The majority explained the general principles for analyzing whether an agency has exceeded its powers:

To determine whether an administrative agency has usurped the power of the Legislature, courts must consider whether the agency: (1) “operat[ed] outside of its proper sphere of authority” by balancing competing social concerns in reliance “solely on [its] own ideas of sound public policy”; (2) engaged in typical, “interstitial” rulemaking or “wrote on a clean slate, creating its own comprehensive set of rules without the benefit of legislative guidance”; (3) “acted in an area in which the Legislature has repeatedly tried — and failed — to reach agreement in the face of substantial public debate and vigorous lobbying by a variety of interested factions”; and (4) applied its “special expertise or technical competence” to develop the challenged regulations (Boreali v Axelrod, 71 NY2d at 12-14 …). Matter of Acevedo v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs., 2015 NY Slip Op 06467, 3rd Dept 8-6-15

August 6, 2015