You are here: / Administrative Law
,

Exceptions to “Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies” Requirement Not Applicable—“Futility” and “Irreparable Harm” Not Demonstrated

The Third Department determined that petitioner (a nursing home) could not, via an Article 78 proceeding, involve the courts to contest the Department of Health’s (DOH’s) calculation of Medicaid reimbursement rates because petitioner did not first exhaust every available administrative remedy.  The exceptions to the exhaustion requirement, futility and irreparable harm, did not apply:

It is well settled that an administrative agency’s determination must be challenged through every available administrative remedy before it can be challenged in the courts … . The narrow exceptions to this requirement include, as relevant here, where an administrative challenge would be futile or the petitioner can demonstrate irreparable harm … . Neither exception has been demonstrated. Matter of Schenectady Nursing & Rehabilitation Ctr LLC, v Shah, 2015 NY Slip Op 00425, 3rd Dept 1-15-15

 

 

,

Regulation Mandating a 25-Year Look-Back for Relicensing (Driver’s License) Is a Valid Exercise of the Department of Motor Vehicles’ Authority/Regulation Was Correctly Applied to Deny Petitioner’s Application for Relicensing

The Fourth Department determined the 25-year look-back for relicensing in the Department of Motor Vehicles regulations was a valid exercise of the department’s authority.  Under the regulation, the department was required to deny petitioner’s application for relicensing based upon his record:

We conclude that 15 NYCRR 136.5 [the 25-year look-back] is not legislative in nature, inasmuch as the Legislature delegated its authority to administer the relicensing process to the Commissioner of the Department of Motor Vehicles (see Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 215 [a]; 510 [5], [6]…). Therefore, in promulgating 15 NYCRR part 136, the Commissioner has not “act[ed] inconsistently with the Legislature, or usurp[ed] its prerogatives” … . * * *

Here, within the 25 years preceding petitioner’s most recent revocable offense (see 15 NYCRR 136.5 [a] [4]), i.e., driving while intoxicated, petitioner has two other alcohol-related driving convictions, i.e., driving while intoxicated and driving while ability impaired, both under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 (see 15 NYCRR 136.5 [a] [1] [i]). Furthermore, respondent properly concluded that petitioner committed a serious driving offense within the meaning of the regulation because the regulation defines a serious driving offense as occurring where a driver has accumulated “20 or more points from any violations” (15 NYCRR 136.5 [a] [2] [iv]), and petitioner had accumulated 21 points from other traffic violations. Respondent was therefore required to deny petitioner’s application for relicensing. Matter of Shearer v Fiala, 2015 NY Slip Op 00051, 4th Dept 1-2-15

 

 

,

Regulation Prohibiting/Restricting Smoking in New York Parks Properly Promulgated by Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation—“Boreali” Criteria Explained and Applied to the Facts in Some Depth

Reversing Supreme Court, the Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Peters, determined that a regulation prohibiting/restricting smoking in New York parks was properly promulgated by the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP).  Petitioner, an organization promoting the interests of smokers, argued the agency did not have the authority to regulate smoking in parks absent legislation on the issue and, therefore, the promulgation of the rule violated the principle of separation of powers.  The court explained the “Boreali” criteria under which the regulation was analyzed and applied the criteria to the facts (the interesting, detailed, fact-specific analysis is not summarized here):

Respondents, the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (hereinafter OPRHP) and its Commissioner, are empowered by statute to “[o]perate and maintain . . . historic sites and objects, parks, parkways and recreational facilities”(PRHPL 3.09 [2]) and to “[p]rovide for the health, safety and welfare of the public using facilities under its jurisdiction” (PRHPL 3.09 [5]). In February 2013, pursuant to this statutory authority, OPRHP adopted a rule establishing smoke-free areas in certain limited outdoor locations under its jurisdiction (see 9 NYCRR 386.1). Such regulation, among other things, also prohibits smoking in each state park located in New York City, with limited exceptions (see 9 NYCRR 386.1 [a] [2])… . OPRHP announced that this rule was needed in order to allow “patrons to enjoy the outdoors, breathe fresh air, walk, swim, exercise and experience [s]tate [p]arks' amenities and programs without being exposed to secondhand tobacco smoke and tobacco litter” (NY Reg Dec. 5, 2012 at 11). * * *

“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” (…see NY Const, art III, § 1). As the Court of Appeals has recently reaffirmed, when determining whether an administrative agency has violated the constitutional principle of separation of powers, we must consider the “coalescing circumstances” set forth in Boreali v Axelrod (71 NY2d 1, 11 [1987]), namely, (1) whether the respondents improperly engaged in the balancing of their stated goal with competing social concerns and acted “solely on [their] own ideas of sound public policy”; (2) whether the respondents engaged in the “interstitial” rulemaking typical of administrative agencies or instead “wrote on a clean slate, creating [their] own comprehensive set of rules without benefit of legislative guidance”; (3) whether the challenged regulation concerns “an area in which the Legislature ha[s] 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) whether the respondents overstepped their bounds because the development of the regulation did not require the exercise of expertise or technical competence by the administrative agency (id. at 12-14 …). In determining whether “the difficult-to-define line between administrative rule-making and legislative policy-making has been transgressed,” this Court should view these circumstances “in combination” (Boreali v Axelrod, 71 NY2d at 11), while ever mindful 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'” … .

Applying the four Boreali considerations, we find no usurpation of the Legislature's prerogative by respondents' promulgation of 9 NYCRR 386.1. Matter of NYC C.L.A.S.H. Inc v New York State Off of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preserv, 2014 NY Slip Op 09085, 3rd Dept 12-31-14


 

, ,

Plaintiff-Resident of an Adult Care Facility Did Not Have Standing to Object to An Informal Procedure Used by the Department of Health (DOH) Re: the Inspection of Adult Care Facilities (Affording a Meeting Between the Facility and DOH Prior to the Publication of an Inspection Report)—Standing to Challenge Governmental Action Discussed in Some Depth

The First Department determined that the plaintiff in a class action suit did not have standing to object to a procedure used by the Department of Health (DOH) re: its inspection of adult care facilities.  Plaintiff is a resident of an adult care facility. The DOH inspection review process (IRP) affords the operators of adult care facilities the opportunity for an informal one-hour meeting with DOH staff after an inspection report is drafted but before it is published.  Plaintiff alleged the informal meeting was not authorized by any regulation and hampered residents' rights re: grievances against a residential care facility:

Since plaintiff is challenging DOH's implementation of the IRP, a governmental action, he must establish that he has standing to do so by showing an “injury in fact,” meaning that plaintiff will actually suffer harm by the challenged administrative action and that the injury asserted by him falls “within the zone of interests or concerns sought to be promoted or protected by the statutory provision under which the agency has acted” … . The alleged injury or harm must also be in some way different from that of the public at large … .

Although plaintiff alleges that the IRP process favors adult home operators by allowing them to privately address adverse findings or corrective actions DOH identifies, without any input by residents of the adult home, plaintiff does not otherwise articulate how he is disadvantaged by this process, how the outcomes of some of these investigations would have been different had residents been permitted to participate in the IRP, or that the substandard living conditions or mistreatment he complains of are attributable to DOH's implementation of the IRP. The only “injury” plaintiff alleges is that resolution of residents' complaints are delayed when an adult home operator contests the outcome of an investigation and residents are not aware of or notified that any particular complaint is subject to an IRP. These allegations are far too generalized and speculative to satisfy the “injury in fact” requirement that would confer plaintiff with standing to challenge the procedures DOH has implemented … . Plaintiff does not articulate any harm or injury that he will suffer that is in some way an identifiable interest of his own, different from that of the public at large… .

Plaintiff and the members of the proposed class of adult home residents are also outside the “zone of interests” sought to be protected by the applicable statutory and regulatory framework under which the agency has acted … . DOH is vested with the authority to establish the procedures by which complaints are investigated and violations corrected (see Social Services Law § 461-o, 18 NYCRR § 486.2[a]). Moreover, DOH's enforcement powers are exceedingly broad, ranging from the imposition of civil penalties to the revocation, suspension or limitation of an operating certificate, after a hearing. DOH can even request that the Attorney General seek injunctive relief or criminally prosecute an operator for any violation or threatened violations of law or regulation (see SSL § 460—d; 18 NYCRR § 486.4[b]; see also 18 NYCRR §§ 486.4[b]-[h]). The governing regulatory scheme–which plaintiff does not challenge–plainly contemplates dialogue between DOH and adult home operators during the inspection process. Rather than providing for universal participation by residents in that process, they are expressly excluded from disclosure of investigation outcomes that are being contested by the operator (see Social Services Law §§ 461-a[1], [2][b], [2][c]; 461-d[3][b], [c], [g]; 461-o; 18 NYCRR 486.2[o]). The IRP is, therefore, wholly consistent with the enabling statutes. Bloomfield v Cannavo, 2014 NY Slip OP 08902, 1st Dept 12-23-14


,

Rule Allowing Testing of Horses for Speed-Enhancing Drugs at Times Other than Just Before a Race Is a Valid Exercise of Racing & Wagering Board’s Authority

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lippman, determined that the NYS Racing & Wagering Board did not exceed its authority when it promulgated rules allowing testing horses for the presence of speed-enhancing drugs at times other than immediately preceding a race:

While it is true that an administrative agency within the executive branch may not under the guise of rule-making engage in basic policy determinations reserved to the Legislature …, it is also true that the Legislature “has considerable latitude in determining the reasonable and practicable point of generality in adopting a standard for administrative action and, thus, [that] a reasonable amount of discretion may be delegated to . . . administrative officials” … . Here, the Legislature, in drafting Racing Law § 301 (2), was at pains to be explicit that that subsection was not to be construed as a limitation upon respondent's powers “to supervise generally all harness race meetings in this state at which pari-mutuel betting is conducted” and in that connection to “adopt rules and regulations . . . to carry into effect its [respondent's] purposes and provisions and to prevent circumvention or evasion thereof” (Racing Law § 301 [1]). Thus, not only does section 301 when read in its entirety make plain that the Legislature had no purpose of restricting respondent's general supervisory power over pari-mutuel harness race meetings, but it specifically authorizes regulatory action to prevent the circumvention or evasion of existing rules, necessarily including those whose object, sensibly understood, is “effectually” to prevent horses from racing under the influence of speed-enhancing doping agents. Out-of-competition drug testing, which, as noted, has as its raison d'etre the plugging of a loophole created in the pre-existing regulatory regimen by the introduction of doping agents capable of affecting competitive performance while eluding race day detection, is precisely the sort of measure contemplated by section 301 (1). As for section 902 (1), it too has no apparent limiting purpose — its designation of a laboratory to perform equine drug testing at race meetings does not reasonably signify that such testing may be required by respondent only at race meetings. Matter of Ford v NYS Racing & Wagering Board, 2014 NY Slip Op 08870, CtApp 12-18-14

 

, ,

Teacher Who Was Encouraged by the Superintendent to Resign Her Tenured Teaching Position to Take A Library-Position Which Was Subsequently Eliminated Did Not Thereby Voluntarily Waive Her Seniority Rights—She Was Entitled to Reinstatement In Her Tenured Teaching Position With Back Pay

The Third Department determined that a teacher (petitioner) who, at the request of the school superintendent resigned her teaching position to take a library media specialist (LMS) position, did not waive her seniority rights.  After the LMS position was eliminated and petitioner was terminated, petitioner brought an Article 78 proceeding to reinstate her as a tenured teacher. Supreme Court granted the petition and the Third Department affirmed:

Respondents maintain that Supreme Court erred in finding that the termination of petitioner’s employment was arbitrary and capricious and irrational, inasmuch as petitioner freely waived her seniority rights when she resigned from her position as an English teacher. Although an employee may waive his or her seniority rights by resigning or retiring, “such a relinquishment must be knowing and voluntary” … . An effective waiver of such rights must be free from any indicia of duress or coercion … .

The record demonstrates that, when petitioner was encouraged by the interim Superintendent to take the LMS position, she expressed her reluctance to leave her position as an English teacher and asked if she could take a leave of absence rather than resign. The interim Superintendent indicated that a leave of absence would not suffice and that petitioner’s resignation was required. After tendering her letter of resignation, which the Board accepted a month after appointing her to the LMS position, petitioner received a longevity pay increase, continued to accrue sick and personal leave time that had carried over from her English teaching position and also received a severance payment from the District that would not have been made if petitioner had voluntarily severed her employment. Notably, when petitioner moved into the LMS position, she assumed such position without any interruption in service … . Where, as here, an employee does not take the necessary “affirmative steps to terminate all aspects of his or her employment by a school district,” no waiver of seniority and tenure rights will be found … . Accordingly, as the Commissioner’s dismissal of petitioner’s appeal was arbitrary and capricious and lacking a rational basis, Supreme Court’s judgment annulling that determination shall remain undisturbed … . Matter of Kwasnik v King, 2014 NY Slip Op 08697, 3rd Dept 12-11-14

 

,

Indian Point Nuclear Power Plants Exempt from a Consistency Review Under New York’s Coastal Management Program—No State Environmental Impact Statements Required—Federal Environmental Impact Statements Prepared in the 1970’s Deemed Sufficient to Trigger the Exemption Under the Plain Meaning of the Statutory and Regulatory Language

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Clark, determined that the petitioners, owners and operators of Indian Point nuclear power plants seeking renewal of operating licenses, were exempt from New York’s Coastal Management Program (CMP).  The court explained that the plain language of the relevant statutes and regulations did not require the preparation of environmental impact statements pursuant to New York’s State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), as the Department of State and the lower court had ruled. The fact that environmental impact statements had been prepared in the 1970’s under the federal National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was deemed sufficient to trigger the exemption:

Petitioners particularly focus upon the second exemption in the CMP, which exempts from consistency review “those projects for which a final [e]nvironmental [i]mpact [s]tatement has been prepared prior to the effective date of the Department of State [p]art 600 regulations … .” 19 NYCRR part 600 took effect in 1982. Indian Point 2 and Indian Point 3 went into operation prior to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (see ECL art 8 [hereinafter SEQRA]) taking effect in 1976 and, as such, environmental impact statements were not prepared under SEQRA. Final environmental impact statements were prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 USC § 4321 et seq. [hereinafter NEPA]), however, and statements were completed for Indian Point 2 and Indian Point 3 in 1972 and 1975, respectively. Accordingly, applying the plain meaning of the language in the CMP, Indian Point 2 and Indian Point 3 are exempt from consistency review.

The Department nevertheless held that the exemption did not apply to Indian Point 2 and Indian Point 3 because their final environmental impact statements had not been prepared pursuant to SEQRA. There is simply no basis in law for injecting such a requirement. The Department noted that 19 NYCRR 600.3 (d) is cited in the exemption and refers to final environmental impact statements prepared under the SEQRA regulatory regime, but that regime permits the use of final environmental impact statements prepared under NEPA (see 6 NYCRR 617.2 [n]; 617.15 [a]; Philip Weinberg, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 17½, ECL 8-0111). Indeed, SEQRA is modeled upon NEPA, and there is no indication that the final environmental impact statements prepared for Indian Point 2 and Indian Point 3 would not have complied with SEQRA … . Matter of Entergy Nuclear Operation Inc v New York State Dept of State, 2014 NY Slip Op 08702, 3rd Dept 12-11-14

 

, , , ,

Court’s Limited Arbitration-Review Powers Described—Collateral Estoppel Precluded the District from Raising the “Faithless Servant Doctrine” in a Related Lawsuit Because the Arbitrator Concluded the Doctrine Did Not Apply

The Third Department affirmed the arbitrator's decision that the school district employee, who had attempted to retire after allegations that she stole school district property surfaced, was entitled to health benefits.  The court determined, given that the faithless servant doctrine was litigated fully during the arbitration and deemed inapplicable, and given the arbitrator's conclusion the employee was entitled to her contractual health benefits, the school district was collaterally estopped from amending its complaint in the related court proceedings to include the faithless servant doctrine:

…Vacatur of the arbitration award is not warranted. “It is well established that an arbitrator's award is largely unreviewable” … . Vacatur of an arbitration award is only appropriate where “it violates a strong public policy, is irrational, or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator's power” … . “Outside of these narrowly circumscribed exceptions, courts lack authority to review arbitral decisions, even where 'an arbitrator has made an error of law or fact'” … . Union-Endicott Cent Sch Dist v Peters, 2014 NY Slip Op 08533, 3rd Dept 12-4-14

 

, , ,

Employees Terminated Pursuant to Civil Service Law 73 Are, as a Matter of Due Process, Entitled to a Posttermination Hearing

The Third Department determined that petitioner, who had been terminated from his position as a state college police officer, was entitled to a posttermination hearing.  To deny his request for the hearing denied petitioner due process:

…[T]he failure to conduct a posttermination hearing was violative of his right to due process. Employees who are terminated from their positions pursuant to Civil Service Law § 73 “are entitled to a full posttermination hearing” … . Respondents speculate that it is unlikely that petitioner could produce medical evidence establishing his fitness to occupy his position as of the date of his termination from employment. If we were to accept respondents’ reasoning, it would allow an agency that is intent on terminating an employee to arbitrarily decide whether a posttermination hearing was necessary, a determination which flies in the face of existing law. The rationale for providing petitioner with a posttermination hearing is to afford him a final opportunity to present proof demonstrating how his mental condition changed, if at all, and whether he is able to perform his job duties as of the date of his termination … . To deny petitioner’s request for a posttermination hearing was constitutionally infirm and, therefore, remittal of this matter is necessary for the completion of such administrative proceedings … . Matter of Jiminez-Reyes v State of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 08273, 3rd Dept 11-26-14

 

, , ,

Commissioner, Due to His Prior Involvement with Discipline of the Petitioner, Should Have Disqualified Himself from Review of the Hearing Officer’s Disciplinary Recommendation and from the Rendering a Final Judgment

In a detailed decision addressing many aspects of administrative law rarely mentioned in the case law (and not described here), the Third Department determined the commissioner of accounts for the city, because of his involvement in earlier related proceedings concerning the petitioner, should have disqualified himself from reviewing the hearing officer’s final determination and rendering a final judgmet in a disciplinary action against the petitioner:

We do … find merit to petitioner’s claim that the Commissioner — having investigated petitioner’s initial allegations of preferential assessment treatment, concluded that such allegations were unfounded, preferred the resulting charges of misconduct and insubordination against petitioner and testified at petitioner’s disciplinary hearing in support of such charges — should have disqualified himself from reviewing the Hearing Officer’s recommendation and rendering a final determination in this matter. Regardless of whether disciplinary charges are pursued in the judicial or administrative realm, “[t]he participation of an independent, unbiased adjudicator in the resolution of disputes is an essential element of due process of law, guaranteed by the Federal and State Constitutions” … . Although a particular individual’s involvement or participation in the disciplinary process does not automatically compel his or her recusal, the case law makes clear that “individuals who are personally or extensively involved in the disciplinary process should disqualify themselves from reviewing the recommendations of a Hearing Officer and from acting on the charges” … . Accordingly, “when an officer institutes charges of misconduct and testifies at [the] ensuing hearing, that officer, in the interest of fairness, must disqualify [himself or] herself from reviewing the Hearing Officer’s recommendations and rendering a final determination” … . Matter of Zlotnick v City of Saratoga Springs, 2014 NY Slip Op 08289, 3rd Dept 11-26-14

 

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