You are here: / Administrative 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

 

, ,

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

 

,

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

 

, ,

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

 

, , ,

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

 

, , ,

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

 

,

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

 

, ,

Petitioner-Teacher Never Consented to an “Out of Area” Assignment—Therefore She Was Entitled to Seniority in Her Teaching Area, Despite Her Assignment to Another Area

The Third Department determined Supreme Court correctly annulled the commissioner’s determination terminating petitioner’s employment on the ground that her position was properly eliminated because she had the least seniority. Although petitioner was in the English tenure area, she was assigned to teach computer classes, which she had taught for 11 years. The commissioner determined she had acquired no seniority because she had not taught in her tenure area.  However, the relevant regulations require that a teacher consent to an “out of area” assignment. Because petitioner never consented to an “out of area” assignment, she was entitled to seniority in her English tenure area, despite the fact she was assigned to teach computer classes.  The Third Department noted that the Commissioner’s ruling constituted an artificial or forced construction of the applicable regulations:

Petitioner acknowledges that, although the Board awarded her tenure in the English 7-12 tenure area, she never spent 40% or more of her time teaching English classes. She contends, however, that her seniority is preserved by another provision of the Rules, which states that “[n]o professional educator, whether on tenure or in probationary status, may be assigned to devote a substantial portion of his [or her] time in a tenure area other than that in which he [or she] has acquired tenure or is in probationary status, without his [or her] prior written consent” (8 NYCRR 30-1.9 [c]).

Our review of the evidence reveals that petitioner was a professional educator (see 8 NYCRR 30-1.1 [e]) who was assigned exclusively to teach computer classes, which the Board admits was an assignment outside of her probationary and acquired English 7-12 tenure area. The record is devoid of evidence that petitioner was aware that she was given an out-of-area assignment or that she consented to it in writing. * * * Nowhere in the language of 8 NYCRR 30-1.9 (c) is there a requirement that professional educators must first spend some of their time teaching within their probationary or acquired tenure areas before earning the right to consent to an out-of-area assignment. Inasmuch as the Commissioner’s interpretation reads this nonexistent requirement into the provision, we view it as “an artificial or forced construction” (McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 94).

The Commissioner’s interpretation also runs contrary to the underlying purposes of the Rules governing teacher tenure and seniority credit. As the Court of Appeals has noted, 8 NYCRR former 30.9 (b) (now 8 NYCRR 30-1.9 [c]) “protects teachers from being deprived of credit in a previously appointed tenure area if they unwittingly accept, and serve in, out-of-area assignments” … . The “twofold protective purpose” of 8 NYCRR 30-1.9 (c) — that is, to protect teachers from unknowing, involuntary out-of-area assignments and allow for the accrual of seniority credit in their original tenure area if they should accept such an assignment — is not served if the provision is construed in such a way as “to block a teacher from receiving seniority credit which, absent school district error, would have been received by reason of actual service in an out-of-tenure area”… . Because the Commissioner’s interpretation of 8 NYCRR 30-1.9 (c) has precisely this effect on petitioner, we find that Supreme Court properly annulled the Commissioner’s confirmation of petitioner’s termination. Matter of Cronk v King, 2015 NY Slip Op 06396, 3rd Dept 7-30-15

 

, ,

Agency’s Failure to Follow Its Own Regulations Renders Determination Arbitrary and Capricious

The Second Department, over a partial dissent, in a rent-overcharge proceeding, affirmed Supreme Court’s review of the propriety of rent regulated by the NYC Rent Stabilization Code. The court explained the extent of the courts’ review powers of the administrative rulings, noting that the Deputy Commissioner’s failure to calculate the appropriate rent in the manner dictated by the controlling regulations rendered that particular aspect of the Commissioner’s ruling arbitrary and capricious:

“[I]n a CPLR article 78 proceeding to review a determination of the DHCR [NYC Department of Housing and Community Renewal], the court is limited to . . . the question of whether its determination was arbitrary and capricious and without a rational basis” … . In reviewing a determination of the DHCR, “[t]he court may not substitute its judgment for that of the DHCR” … . “The DHCR’s interpretation of the statutes and regulations it administers, if reasonable, must be upheld” … . * * *

In determining that the [landlord was] entitled to a rental increase of $204.01 per month pursuant to Rent Stabilization Code (9 NYCRR) § 2522.4(a)(1), the Deputy Commissioner deviated from the statutory calculations set forth in Rent Stabilization Code (9 NYCRR) § 2522.4(a)(4). Accordingly, the determination to recalculate the legal regulated rent to be $1,200 per month, by including a rental increase of $204.01 per month, was arbitrary and capricious and did not have a rational basis in the record … . Matter of Velasquez v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 2015 NY Slip Op 06353, 2nd Dept 7-29-15

 

,

Court’s Review Powers Re: a Planning Board’s Denial of a Subdivision Application Explained

In upholding the Planning Board’s denial of petitioner’s subdivision application, the Second Department explained the court’s review criteria in this context: “The court will substitute its judgment for that of a planning board only when the determination was affected by an error of law, or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion, or was irrational (… see CPLR 7803[3]…). When reviewing a planning board’s determination, courts consider substantial evidence only to determine whether the record contains sufficient evidence to support the rationality of the Board’s determination…”. [internal quotation marks omitted] The Second Department went on to look at the evidence, which, although conflicting in some aspects, included support for the rationality of the Planning Board’s ruling. Matter of Ostojic v Gee, 2015 NY Slip Op 06244, 2nd Dept 7-22-15

 

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