You are here: / Administrative Law
, , ,

Court Review of Elimination of Pension Benefits Proper Even though the Administrative Hearing Had Not Yet Been Held—No Need to Exhaust Administrative Remedies Where the Petition Does Not Raise an Issue of Fact that Should Initially Be Determined in the Administrative Hearing

The Third Department determined petitioner, a physician who served four school districts, could seek court review of the comptroller’s removal of his service credits (on the ground petitioner was an independent contractor, not an employee) and the consequent elimination of pension benefits, before an administrative hearing had been held:

“It is well settled that the Comptroller is vested with the exclusive authority to determine all applications for retirement benefits” … . Judicial review is limited to ascertaining whether the Comptroller’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole, in which case the determination must be upheld … .

Moreover, as a general rule, “one who objects to the act of an administrative agency must exhaust available administrative remedies before being permitted to litigate in a court of law” … . However, there are exceptions to the exhaustion doctrine, including where “resort to an administrative remedy would be futile or when its pursuit would cause irreparable injury” or where “an agency’s action is challenged as either unconstitutional or wholly beyond its grant of power” … . * * *

…[W]e find that the allegations in the petition do not raise an issue of fact that “‘should initially be addressed to the administrative agency having responsibility so that the necessary factual record can be established'” … . Under these circumstances, we conclude that petitioner has a cognizable constitutional claim regarding the prehearing removal of his service credits and cancellation of his retirement application that is ripe for our review and survives respondents’ motion to dismiss … . Matter of Kravitz v DiNapoli, 2014 NY Slip Op 08284, 3rd Dept 11-26-14

 

, ,

Retroactive Application of New Regulations Affecting the Revocation of Driver’s Licenses for Alcohol- and Drug-Related Convictions or Incidents Okay—No Vested Right Re: License to Drive

The Third Department determined the new regulations concerning the effect of alcohol- or drug-related convictions or incidents can be applied retroactively because they do not affect a vested right:

“Retroactive statutes are those which impair vested rights or alter past transactions or considerations” … . Here, however, petitioner’s driver’s license is not generally viewed as a vested right, but merely a personal privilege subject to reasonable restrictions and revocation by respondent under her discretionary powers (see Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 510 [c]; 1192 [2]…). Thus, respondent remained free to apply her most recent regulations when exercising her discretion in deciding whether to grant or deny petitioner’s application for relicensing. This is especially so in light of the rational, seven-month moratorium placed on all similarly-situated applicants for relicensing — i.e., persons with three or more alcohol-related driving convictions (see NY Reg, Mar. 13, 2013 at 46…). Furthermore, inasmuch as the revised regulations operated only to nominally change the effect of petitioner’s past acts on his future eligibility to obtain a driver’s license and was not imposed as punishment but, rather, to promote public safety, respondent’s application of 15 NYCRR 136.5 (b) (2) was proper under these circumstances (see … State Administrative Procedure Act § 202 [6]). Matter of Scism v Fiala, 2014 NY Slip Op 08283, 3rd Dept 11-26-14

 

, , , ,

Issuance of a Positive Declaration that the Requested Rezoning May Have a Significant Impact on the Environment and the Requirement that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement Be Drawn Up, Under the Facts, Did Not Constitute an “Injury” Sufficient to Make the Matter Ripe for Court Review—All the Relevant Factors Discussed in Depth

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dickerson, determined that the town board’s issuance of a positive declaration pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) (finding the proposed rezoning to heavy industrial may have a significant effect on the environment) and the requirement that the petitioner (landowner) prepare and circulate a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS), under all the facts, did not constitute an “injury” sufficient to make the matter ripe for judicial review.  Much of the opinion was devoted to distinguishing Matter of Gordon v Rush, 100 NY2d 236, where the Court of Appeals determined, under the facts, the positive SEQRA declaration and the DEIS requirement constituted an “injury” sufficient to make the case ripe for court review without further proceedings.  The Second Department determined that facts here did not warrant the relief granted in the Rush case:

“Ripeness is a justiciability doctrine designed to prevent the courts, through avoidance of premature adjudication, from entangling themselves in abstract disagreements over administrative policies, and also to protect the agencies from judicial interference until an administrative decision has been formalized and its effects felt in a concrete way by the challenging parties'” … . “To determine whether a matter is ripe for judicial review, it is necessary first to determine whether the issues tendered are appropriate for judicial resolution, and second to assess the hardship to the parties if judicial relief is denied” … .

A court considering review of an agency determination “must determine whether an agency has arrived at a definitive position on the issue that inflicts an actual concrete injury and whether the resolution of the dispute requires any fact-finding, for [e]ven if an administrative action is final, however, it will still be “inappropriate” for judicial review and, hence, unripe, if the determination of the legal controversy involves the resolution of factual issues'” … . “The position taken by an agency is not definitive and the injury is not actual or concrete if the injury purportedly inflicted by the agency could be prevented, significantly ameliorated, or rendered moot by further administrative action or by steps available to the complaining party” … . * * *

“An action taken by an agency pursuant to SEQRA may be challenged only when such action is final” … . Traditionally, a “SEQRA determination [has] usually [been] considered to be a preliminary step in the decision-making process and, therefore, . . . not ripe for judicial review until the decision-making process has been completed” … . Matter of Ranco Sand & Stone Corp v Vecchio, 2014 NY Slip Op 08338, 2nd Dept 11-26-14

 

, ,

Type II Actions (Here Replacement of a Wooden Boardwalk With Synthetic Materials) Presumptively Do Not Have a Significant Impact on the Environment and Do Not Require an Environmental Impact Statement

Petitioners brought an Article 78 proceeding against the NYC Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) alleging that the plan to replace wooden planks in a boardwalk with a concrete/plastic surface violated the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and the City Environmental Quality Review Rules (CEQR).  The Second Department noted the action was timely and the DPR’s determination the replacement of the boardwalk was a Type II action under SEQR and CEQR that presumptively did not have a significant environmental impact and did not require an environmental impact statement:

The DPR failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that it made a final and binding determination to implement the plan, and that the petitioners were provided notice of such a determination more than four months before the proceeding was commenced (see CPLR 217[1]…).

… The DPR determined that the proposed boardwalk project was for a “replacement, rehabilitation or reconstruction of a structure or facility, in kind” (6 NYCRR 617.5[c][2]) and, thus, was a Type II action under SEQRA and CEQR that presumptively did not have a significant impact upon the environment, and did not require the preparation and circulation of an environmental impact statement. The fact that different materials were used in the replacement construction did not alter the propriety of classifying the project as a Type II action, and that determination was, thus, not arbitrary and capricious, made in violation of lawful procedure, affected by an error of law, an abuse of discretion, or irrational … . Once an action is properly classified as a Type II action under the enumerated provisions of 6 NYCRR 617.5(c), which the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation has already determined to have no significant impact on the environment… . Matter of Coney-Brighton Boardwalk Alliance v New York City Dept of Parks & Recreation, 2014 NY Slip Op 08334, 2nd Dept 11-26-14

 

, ,

Tenured Teacher Subject to Discipline Is Entitled to a Hearing Pursuant to Education Law 3020-a Notwithstanding an Alternative Procedure in a Collective Bargaining Agreement

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lippman, over a dissent, determined that a tenured teacher subject to discipline is entitled to a hearing pursuant to Education Law 3020-a, notwithstanding the existence of an alternative procedure agreed to in a collective bargaining agreement which was negotiated (or renegotiated) after Section 3020-a went into effect in 1994:

…[I]t is plain that the legislative intent informing its 1994 amendment (L 1994, ch 691) was to assure that tenured educators against whom formal disciplinary charges were lodged could avail themselves, if they so chose, of the procedural protections set forth in contemporaneously amended Education Law § 3020-a. While section 3020 (1) does “grandfather” pre-September 1, 1994 CBA discipline review procedures contained in unaltered CBAs, its evidently dominant purpose was prospectively to secure the right of tenured employees to avail themselves of the process set forth in Education Law § 3020-a. That purpose and the indefinite retention of mandatory alternative CBA review procedures are not easily, if at all, reconcilable. With that in mind, we believe the statute must be understood to sunset CBA provisions depriving tenured employees of the § 3020-a recourse to which they are otherwise entitled. Matter of Kilduff v Rochester City School District, 2014 NY Slip Op 08056, CtApp 11-20-14

 

, , ,

Failure to Bring Timely Article 78 Proceedings to Contest Town Planning Board Decisions Approving Construction of a Condominium Cannot Be Circumvented by Bringing an Action for a Declaratory Judgment

The Fourth Department affirmed Supreme Court’s finding that the statute of limitations for an Article 78 proceeding contesting the determination(s) of a town planning board cannot be circumvented by bringing an action for a declaratory judgment.  The dispute concerned whether “substantial work” had been commenced on a condominium construction project such that the approval of the project did not terminate automatically due to the passage of time. The planning board had concluded that “substantial work” included efforts to finance the project and was not limited to physical construction:

We reject plaintiff’s contention that the action was timely and properly brought as a declaratory judgment action pursuant to CPLR 3001. Although a six-year limitations period governs declaratory judgment actions (see CPLR 213 [1]), it is well settled that if such claim could have been brought in another form, then the shorter limitations period applies … . Here, Town Law § 274-a (11) provides for a 30-day limitations period for challenging “a decision of the [planning] board or any officer, department, board or bureau of the town” under CPLR article 78. Thus, plaintiff’s challenge to the Town Code Enforcement Officer’s determination of the meaning of “significant work” under Code § 170-94 (J) could have been brought in a CPLR article 78 proceeding under Town Law § 274-a (11). Assuming arguendo, as plaintiff contends, that no administrative appeal from such determination was required or available, the action was not commenced within the 30-day limitations period set forth in section 274-a (11), and the court therefore properly granted defendants’ motions to dismiss on that ground … . Likewise, any challenge to the 2005, 2009 or 2012 Planning Board’s actions could have been brought in a CPLR article 78 proceeding, and thus the instant action, even though denominated as one for a declaratory judgment, also was not timely commenced within the 30-day limitations period applicable to each such action of the Planning Board (see Town Law § 274-a [11]; see also Town Law §§ 267-c [1]; 282).

We reject plaintiff’s further contention that, with respect to the Town Code Enforcement Officer’s determination, there was no administrative action and thus “nothing to appeal.” Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, Code § 170-92 (B) specifically provides for an appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals where it is alleged that there is an error in any order or decision made by an administrative officer or body in the enforcement of the Code … . Thus, plaintiff failed to pursue the available administrative appeal …, and the 30-day period of limitations applicable to judicial review therefrom cannot be circumvented by “the simple expedient of denominating the action one for declaratory relief” … . Bristol Homeowners Envtl Preserv Assoc LLC v Town of Bristol, 2014 NY Slip Op 07790, 4th Dept 11-14-14

 

, , ,

Transmission Line from Hydroelectric Power Facility in Canada to Queens Properly Approved

The Third Department determined that the NYS Public Service Commission properly issued a certificate of environmental compatibility and public need (EC & PN) for an electric power transmission line running from a hydroelectric power facility in Canada to Queens.  After the issuance of the EC & PN, the petitioners sought a rehearing pursuant to Public Service Law 22.  The Commission denied the petition on the ground it had been filed and served one day late.  The Third Department held that the failure to timely file was nonprejudicial “law office failure” which should have been excused pursuant to CPLR 2005 and went on to review the Commission’s grant of the EC & PN on the merits, including the economic feasibility of the plan, the public need for the hydropower-produced electricity (reduced carbon emissions),  and the effects of the transmission line on the environment:

We begin by recognizing that, as parties to the proceedings at the agency level, petitioners have standing … . The criteria for authorizing the construction and operation of a major utility transmission facility are set forth in Public Service Law § 126. Under this statute, the Commission may not grant a certificate approving an electric transmission project unless it finds and determines (1) the need for the facility, (2) whether the facility will achieve the minimum adverse environmental impacts, (3) whether the facility will be located underground and comport with the state’s long-range plan to expand the electric power grid, (4) that there has been conformance with applicable state and local laws and regulations, and (5) that the facility promotes the public interest, convenience and necessity (see Public Service Law § 126 [1] [a]-[d], [f], [g]). This project involves the placement of a high voltage, direct current transmission line extending from the Canadian border to a converter station in Queens and, from there, a high voltage, alternating current transmission line to the Rainey Substation. The line will be placed underwater in Lake Champlain and the Hudson River and underground in the upland segments. * * *

Petitioners contend that the Commission failed to adequately consider the potential harm to aquatic species, including the endangered shortnose and atlantic sturgeon, posed by the placement of cables underwater. The plan requires the underwater cables to be buried at least six feet beneath the lake/river bottom, except in areas of utility crossings and hard rock. In these areas, the cable will be covered by concrete mats. The specific risks emanate from the use of the concrete mats as well as magnetic and electromagnetic field impact. The record supports the Commission’s determination that any risk has been minimized by the placement of the cable route utilizing existing habitat information designed to avoid significant coastal fish and wildlife habitat areas designated by the Department of State (see 19 NYCRR part 602) and the exclusion zones identified by the parties in the joint proposal. There is also expert record evidence supporting the Commission’s conclusion that the magnetic fields’ impact on sturgeon and other aquatic species would be minimal. Further, we agree with the Commission’s observation that the July 5, 2011 letter from the Army Corps of Engineers addressing the cable route under Lake Champlain and the Hudson River was a preliminary assessment. Moreover, the certificate is conditioned on the applicants’ procurement of a construction permit from the Army Corps of Engineers, which has jurisdiction over these navigable waterways, prior to commencing construction.  Matter of Entergy Nuclear Power Mktg LLC v New York State Pub Serv Comm, 2014 NY Slip Op 07711, 3rd Dept 11-13-14

 

, ,

Four-Month Statute of Limitations Started When Petitioner’s Attorney Received the Order, Not When the Order Was Served on Petitioner

With respect to an Article 78 proceeding to contest a determination of the Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Conservation, the four-month statute of limitations began when petitioner’s attorney received the Commissioner’s order, not when the order was served on petitioner.  Matter of Sutherland v New York State Dept of Envtl Conservation, 2014 NY Slip Op 07674, 2nd Dept 11-12-14

 

,

Criteria for “Substantial Evidence” Review of an Administrative Determination After a Hearing Explained

In annulling the ruling of the Housing Authority because it was not supported by substantial evidence, the Second Department explained its role in reviewing an administrative ruling after a hearing:

“Judicial review of an administrative determination made after a hearing required by law is limited to whether that determination is supported by substantial evidence” … . 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 …, or from the absence of evidence supporting a contrary conclusion … .

Here, the Housing Authority’s determination that the petitioner allowed her father to reside with her without notice to or approval from the Housing Authority in violation of the rules and regulations of the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program was not supported by substantial evidence. Matter of Harrison v Palumbo, 2014 NY Slip OP 07510, 2nd Dept 11-5-14

 

,

Criteria for Court Review of Agency Action Explained

In affirming the town’s approval of a subdivision plan, the Third Department explained its review powers:

…”[i]t is not the province of the courts to second-guess thoughtful agency decisionmaking and, accordingly, an agency decision should be annulled only if it is arbitrary, capricious or unsupported by the evidence” … . Moreover, “[w]hile judicial review must be meaningful, the courts may not substitute their judgment for that of the agency for it is not their role to weigh the desirability of any action or [to] choose among alternatives” … . Matter of Dugan v Liggan, 2014 NY Slip Op 07404, 3rd Dept 10-30-14

 

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