You are here: / Administrative Law
,

The Agency’s Determination Was Based Upon Its Own Precedents and Related Jurisprudence and Was Therefore “Rationally Based”—The Determination Should Not, Therefore, Be Disturbed by a Court—A Court May Not Substitute Its Own Judgment for that of the Agency

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, reversed Supreme Court’s denial of a motion to dismiss a petition to annul an agency-determination. The underlying proceedings involved two nurses accused of submitting false time sheets. In seeking a hearing allowed by the collective bargaining agreement, the union, on behalf of the nurses, requested certain documents relevant to the allegations from the New York City Human Resources Administration (HRA). HRA refused to turn over the documents, arguing that such “discovery” is not allowed in disciplinary actions (by the relevant regulations). The Board (of Collective Bargaining) ultimately ruled that some, but not all, of the requested documents (those kept in the regular course of business) should be turned over. HRA filed an Article 78 petition seeking to annul the Board’s determination. Supreme Court denied the union’s motion to dismiss the petition.  The 1st Department held the petition should have been dismissed. In reviewing an agency determination, the court looks only at whether the determination is rationally based. Here the Board’s determination was based upon its own precedents and related jurisprudence. Therefore, the determination must stand.  A court cannot substitute its own judgment for that of the agency:

“In reviewing an administrative agency determination, courts must ascertain whether there is a rational basis for the action in question or whether it is arbitrary and capricious” … . “A court cannot simply substitute its judgment for that of an administrative agency when the agency’s determination is reasonable” … . Moreover, “[i]t is well settled that the construction given statutes and regulations by the agency responsible for their administration, if not irrational or unreasonable, should be upheld” … . “Broad deference must therefore be accorded determinations of the Board, which … is the body charged with interpreting and implementing the [regulations] and determining the rights and duties of labor and management in New York City” … .

Given this deferential standard of review, we are compelled to hold that the petition should have been dismissed. The Board’s decision had a rational basis and was not arbitrary and capricious. To be sure, the Board engaged in a relatively expansive interpretation of the duty to furnish information embodied in [the regulations], when it determined that the duty applies in the context of these disciplinary proceedings instituted pursuant to the Agreement. But its interpretation was based on the holdings of some nine prior decisions and was not irrational … . The Board based its decision on its own precedents and related jurisprudence, and its interpretation of the [regulations], a statutory provision within its purview and expertise, was sufficiently reasonable to preclude our “substitut[ing] another interpretation” … . Matter of City of New York v New York State Nurses Assn., 2015 NY Slip Op 04437, 1st Dept 5-26-15

 

 

, , , ,

Town Planning Board’s Approval of the Installation of Wind Turbines Should Not Have Been Reversed—Board Properly Considered All the Factors Mandated by the Land Use Ordinance and Supreme Court Did Not Have the Authority to Substitute Its Judgment for the Board’s

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the town planning board had properly issued a special use permit for the installation of wind turbines. The court noted that the burden of proof on the owner for seeking a special exception (special use permit) is lower than the burden for seeking a variance.  The court held that all of the analytical factors mandated by the land use ordinance had been properly considered by the board and Supreme Court did not have the authority to substitute its own judgment for the board’s:

The Land Use Ordinance permits specified uses in the area where the project is to be built and allows “[a]ll other uses” for which a special use permit is obtained. Contrary to petitioners’ assertion, while the project is not allowed as of right in the district, the fact that it is “permitted . . . is ‘tantamount to a legislative finding that [it] is in harmony with the general zoning plan and will not adversely affect the neighborhood'” … . As such, “the burden of proof on an owner seeking a special exception is lighter than that on an owner seeking a variance, [with] the former only being required to show compliance with any legislatively imposed conditions on an otherwise permitted use” … . The determination of the Board that those conditions had been met here will be upheld if it “has a rational basis and is supported by substantial evidence in the record” … .

The parties do not dispute upon this appeal, and we agree with Supreme Court, that the Board’s findings with regard to six of the eight conditions enumerated in the Land Use Ordinance are supported by substantial evidence. The first of the remaining two conditions requires that the “[l]ocation, use and size of structure, nature and intensity of operations involved, size of site in relation to it, and location of site with respect to existing or future streets giving access, are such that it will be in harmony with orderly development of the district.” The second requires that the “[l]ocation, nature and height of buildings, walls, fences and signs will not discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent land and buildings or impair their value.”

With regard to those two conditions, the wind turbines are almost 500 feet tall when the rotor blades are fully vertical [FN2]. Notwithstanding their size, the Board pointed out that the turbines are located in an area where high-voltage electric transmission lines have already altered the landscape, and noted that other factors minimized the impact of the project upon the viewshed. The project will have minimal impact upon traffic after construction is completed and, given the economic benefits that will accrue to participating landowners, the Board found that it would help to preserve existing uses of the surrounding properties. Moreover, the Board cited a study in the record finding that property values would not be impacted by the project. The Board also pointed to proof that the applicant had entered into setback agreements with nonparticipating landowners who resided within 2,000 feet of the turbines, further ensuring that the project would not impair the use of nearby parcels or development in the zoning district. Supreme Court pointed to conflicting evidence submitted by petitioners with regard to both conditions but, even if that evidence was properly considered, “a court may not substitute its own judgment” where substantial evidence supports the determination of the Board … . Matter of Frigault v Town of Richfield Planning Bd., 2015 NY Slip Op 04355, 3rd Dept 5-21-15

 

, ,

Revocation of Empire-Zone-Business Certifications Upheld in 9 of 11 Instances

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Lynch, considered the Empire Zone Designation Board’s revocation of petitioners’ certifications as empire zone businesses. The Department of Economic Development (DED) was directed, in 2009, to conduct a review of all certified businesses to determine whether decertification was warranted on one of two grounds: “First, DED could decertify a business enterprise if it was a “shirt-changer,” that is, if the enterprise was certified prior to August 1, 2002, and it “caused individuals to transfer from existing employment with another business enterprise with similar ownership . . . to similar employment with [the enterprise] or if the enterprise acquired, purchased, leased, or had transferred to it real property previously owned by an entity with similar ownership, regardless of form of incorporation or ownership” (General Municipal § 959 [a] [v] [5]; see 5 NYCRR 11.9…). Second, DED could decertify a business enterprise if it failed to meet the 1:1 benefit-cost test … . The latter test required decertification where it was determined that the enterprise “has submitted at least three years of business annual reports [and it] has failed to provide economic returns to the [s]tate in the form of total remuneration to its employees (i.e., wages and benefits) and investments in its facility that add to a greater value than the tax benefits the business enterprise used and had refunded to it” … . Applying the standard criteria for review of administrative determinations, the Third Department upheld all but two of the 11 decertifications, but also determined retroactive decertifications were improper. Matter of Lyell Mt. Read Bus. Ctr. LLC v Empire Zone Designation Bd., 2015 NY Slip Op 03906, 3rd Dept 5-7-15

 

, , ,

Comptroller Has Authority to Audit Private Health Care Providers Who Are Paid through an Insurance Company Under Contract with the State for Health Care Provided to State Employees

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, determined the state comptroller had constitutional and statutory authority to audit the billing records of private health care providers (Handler and South) who receive state funds for care provided to state employees through an insurance company under contract with the state. The underlying audit concerned the health care providers' waiver of patients' co-payments which effectively reduced the cost of the care provided by 20%.  Because the state was obligated to pay only 80% of the cost of the care, the comptroller determined the health care providers who waived the copayment were effectively overpaid by the state.  The health care providers argued the comptroller did not have the power to audit them because they were paid by the insurance company, not the state:

Handler and South Island receive State insurance funds in exchange for services rendered to State insurance beneficiaries. The fact that the State relies on a third-party conduit, United [the insurance company], does not change the character of the funds. They remain State dollars directed to pay health care costs incurred by State beneficiaries and charged by Handler and South Island.  Matter of Martin H Handler MD PC v DiNapoli, 2014 NY Slip Op 03191, CtApp 5-6-14

 

,

Denial of Special Use Permit Reversed As Arbitrary and Capricious/Difference Between Special Use Permit and Use Variance Explained

The Second Department determined that the denial of 7-Eleven’s petition for a special exception (also referred to as a special use permit) for operation of a convenience store was arbitrary and capricious.  The court explained the difference between a special use permit and a use variance. A special use permit gives a property owner permission to use property in a way that is consistent with the zoning ordinance but not necessarily allowed as of right. A use variance gives the owner permission to use the property in a manner inconsistent with the zoning ordinance.  The proof burden is much lighter for a special use permit, as opposed to a use variance.  The proponent of a special use permit need only show compliance with legislatively imposed conditions, while the proponent of a use variance must show undue hardship in complying with the ordinance. Here no evidence was presented to support the denial of the special use permit:

A special exception, commonly known as a special use permit, “gives [a property owner] permission to use property in a way that is consistent with the zoning ordinance, although not necessarily allowed as of right” … . By contrast, a use variance gives a property owner permission to use the property in a manner inconsistent with a local zoning ordinance. “The significance of this distinction is that the inclusion of the permitted use in the ordinance is tantamount to a legislative finding that the permitted use is in harmony with the general zoning plan and will not adversely affect the neighborhood” … . Accordingly, “the burden of proof on an owner seeking a special exception is lighter than that on an owner seeking a [use] variance, the former only being required to show compliance with any legislatively imposed conditions on an otherwise permitted use, while the latter must show an undue hardship in complying with the ordinance” … . Matter of 7-Eleven, Inc. v Incorporated Vil. of Mineola, 2015 NY Slip Op 03544, 2nd Dept 4-29-15

 

,

Court’s Review Powers Re: a Zoning Board’s Interpretation of an Ordinance Explained—Reviewing Court Need Not Defer to the Board’s Ruling on a Purely Legal Issue/Here Zoning Board Properly Interpreted the Ordinance—Criteria Explained

Reversing Supreme Court, the Second Department determined the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) had properly found that a “tire sales and automotive repair” business was a “conditional use,” not a “permitted use,” within the meaning of the Village Code. A “conditional use” requires a conditional use permit and site plan approval.  The court explained its review powers in this context and the statutory interpretation criteria it applied. The reviewing court need not defer to the agency’s ruling on a purely legal question (here the meaning of the applicable code provisions). The ordinance must be read as a whole and no language should be rendered superfluous:

” In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of a zoning board of appeals, judicial review is limited to ascertaining whether the action was illegal, arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse of discretion'” … . “[Z]oning restrictions, being in derogation of common-law property rights, should be strictly construed, and any ambiguities are to be resolved in favor of the property owner” … .

A zoning board’s interpretation of its zoning ordinance is generally entitled to great deference … . However, where, as here, “the issue involves pure legal interpretation of statutory terms, deference is not required” … . Pursuant to our independent review of the law, we conclude that the ZBA’s determination complied with applicable legal principles … .

Under the Zoning Code, uses permitted as of right (hereinafter permitted uses) and conditional uses are set forth in accompanying zoning schedules. The uses listed in column A of the applicable schedules “are permitted by right,” while the uses listed in column C “are permitted only on approval of the Planning Board, and are conditioned to [sic] special requirements that may be imposed to ensure compatibility with neighboring uses” (Code of the Village of Monroe § 200-15[B]). Zoning Schedule I-F is applicable to the GB District. The permitted uses enumerated in column A of the Table of Use Requirements of Zoning Schedule I-F include, among others, “retail sales” (Item 17) and “repair service, including automotive” (Item 16). However, column C lists “tire sales and service” (Item 4) among the conditional uses. Section 200-3 of the Code of the Village of Monroe provides that “[i]n the event of conflict in the terminology of any section or part thereof of this chapter, the more restrictive provisions shall control” … .

“A statute such as a zoning ordinance must be construed as a whole, reading all of its parts together, all of which should be harmonized to ascertain legislative intent, and it should be given its plain meaning, avoiding a construction that renders superfluous any language in the ordinance” … . Matter of Robert E. Havell Revocable Trust v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Vil. of Monroe, 2015 NY Slip Op 03369, 2nd Dept 4-22-15

 

, ,

Criteria for an Application for a Use Variance Explained—Not Met Here

The Third Department reversed Supreme Court’s dismissal of a petition to annul the zoning board of appeals’ grant of a use variance to the respondent.  Respondent operates a manufacturing facility in a residential zone.  The facility pre-dated the ordinance making the zone exclusively residential.  The Third Department, in a previous appeal, determined that an addition to the manufacturing facility constituted an unlawful expansion of a nonconforming use.  Thereafter the respondent procured a use variance from the zoning board of appeals.  In concluding the use variance must be annulled, the Third Department explained that the applicant for a use variance must demonstrate the property cannot “yield a reasonable return if used for any of the purposes permitted as it is currently zoned…”.  In this case, the respondent was required to show that using the property for manufacturing without using the disputed addition would not yield a reasonable return. And the respondent was required to demonstrate that converting the entire property, not just the disputed addition, to residential use would not yield a reasonable return.  The respondent indicated only that the addition would be used to store old equipment and only attempted to demonstrate that conversion of the disputed addition (not the entire property) to residential use would not yield a reasonable return. Neither showing was sufficient:

An applicant for a use variance bears the burden of demonstrating, among other things, that the property cannot yield a reasonable return if used for any of the purposes permitted as it is currently zoned (see Town Law § 267-b [2] [b]…). Where, as here, a use variance is sought to expand a nonconforming use, “the applicant must demonstrate that the land cannot yield a reasonable return if used as it then exists or for any other use allowed in the zone” … . Such an inability to yield a reasonable return must be established through the submission of “dollars and cents” proof with respect to each permitted use (… .

Since the operation of the industrial manufacturing facility, as it existed at the time the prohibitory zoning ordinance was enacted in 1983, was a nonconforming use that was permitted to continue because the property was devoted to such a use before the ordinance took effect, it was a use that was permitted in that zone. Further, the property is located in an R1 residential district and, thus, residential uses were also permitted in that zone. Therefore, respondents had the burden of proving that their property could not yield a reasonable return if used as a presently existing nonconforming use — i.e., as a manufacturing facility without use of the addition for manufacturing purposes — or if used for any residential use … . Respondents’ proof was insufficient to meet either of these showings.

With regard to whether the property could yield a reasonable rate of return if continued to be used for manufacturing purposes without utilizing the 800-square-foot addition, the evidence presented at the hearing established that the addition is used to house older equipment that has been replaced by more advanced, efficient equipment. * * *

Even if there were sufficient proof to demonstrate an inability to realize a reasonable return on the property if used as it presently exists for manufacturing purposes, no evidence was presented as to the financial implications of converting the entire property to residential use, [*3]which is a use permitted in that zone. While financial evidence was presented on the cost of converting the addition to a residential use, “[it] is . . . with respect to the whole tract that reasonableness of return is to be measured”… . The fact that respondents’ application for a use variance was limited to the addition is of no moment; the inquiry as to an inability to realize a reasonable return may not be segmented to examine less than all of an owner’s property rights subject to a regulatory regime … . Matter of Nemeth v Village of Hancock Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 2015 NY Slip Op 03008, 3rd Dept 4-9-15

 

,

Denial of Area Variance In the Absence of Evidence of a Detrimental Effect on the Community Was Arbitrary and Capricious

The Second Department determined Supreme Court correctly held that the zoning board of appeals’ denial of area variances was arbitrary and capricious.  The court noted that similar variances had been granted to other parties and there was no evidence before the board that the variances would have an undesirable effect on the character of the community, adversely affect the physical and environmental conditions, or otherwise result in a detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood:

In determining whether to grant an area variance, a zoning board must consider “the benefit to the applicant if the variance is granted, as weighed against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community by such grant” … . The zoning board should also consider “(i) whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance; (ii) whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance; (iii) whether the requested area variance is substantial; (iv) whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and (v) whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the board of appeals, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance” (General City Law § 81-b[4][b]). In applying the statutory balancing test for granting area variances, a zoning board is “not required to justify its determination with supporting evidence with respect to each of the five factors, so long as its ultimate determination balancing the relevant considerations was rational”… . Matter of L & M Graziose, LLP v City of Glen Cove Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 2nd Dept 4-8-15

 

Statutory Provision that the Gaming Commission “Shall” Render a Determination Within 30 Days After a Hearing Is “Directory” Not “Mandatory”—A Late Determination Will Not Be Annulled Absent Prejudice

The Third Department determined Supreme Court erred when it annulled the suspension of petitioner’s license to train and own horses because the NYS Gaming Commission did not render a determination within 30 days of the hearing as required by Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering and Breeding Law 321.  The Third Department determined the 30-day time-limit was not mandatory and petitioner could only seek relief for a violation of section 321 if he could show prejudice related to the delay:

Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering and Breeding Law § 321 provides that, when respondent suspends a harness racing participant’s license, the licensee may demand a hearing and, “[w]ithin thirty days after the conclusion of such hearing, [respondent] shall make a final order in writing.” The use of “shall” is not conclusive, however, inasmuch as the statute does not impose any limitation on respondent’s power to act or provide for any consequences for the failure to comply with the time limit … . Nor has petitioner cited any legislative history, and we are not aware of any, suggesting that the 30-day provision in the statute was intended to be mandatory. Rather, at the time this provision was enacted, similar language in the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law had been judicially determined to be directory … , yet the Legislature imposed no additional language limiting respondent’s power to act when it later enacted Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering and Breeding Law § 321.

Where, as here, an agency fails to follow a procedural provision that is merely directory, the subsequent determination should only be judicially annulled when the challenger can “show that substantial prejudice resulted from the agency’s noncompliance” … . Matter of Pena v New York State Gaming Commn., 2015 NY Slip Op 02821, 3rd Dept 4-2-15

 

, ,

Denial of Application for Renewal of General Contractor’s Registration Based Upon a Conviction Which Preceded a Prior Renewal Was Arbitrary and Capricious

The First Department determined the denial of petitioner’s application for renewal of his general contractor’s registration, based upon a conviction which preceded a prior renewal, was arbitrary and capricious.  The court noted that the presumption derived from petitioner’s certificate of relief from disabilities was not rebutted:

Respondent’s determination lacked a rational basis (see CPLR 7803[3]…). Respondent arbitrarily concluded that petitioner’s prior conviction for filing false documents bore a direct relationship to the duties and responsibilities attendant to the general contractor registration, the license for which he sought renewal (see Correction Law §§ 752[1], 750[3]…). * * *

Respondent’s failure to rebut the presumption of rehabilitation deriving from petitioner’s certificate of relief from disabilities also renders its determination arbitrary and capricious … . Matter of Jakubiak v New York City Dept. of Bldgs., 2015 NY Slip Op 02858, 1st Dept 4-2-15

 

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