You are here: / Administrative Law
, , ,

THE ZONING BOARD’S DENIAL OF A USE VARIANCE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A SOLAR ENERGY GENERATION FACILITY WAS “ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS;” MATTER REMITTED FOR ISSUANCE OF THE VARIANCE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Pritzker, determined petitioners were entitled to a use variance for the construction of a solar energy generation facility, finding the denial of the variance “arbitrary and capricious:”

… [R]espondent erred in failing to afford petitioners a reduced showing relative to their application as a public utility because of the project’s minimal impact … . That the project will have a minimal impact was not only recognized by Supreme Court, but also is fully supported by the evidence in the record, including the unanimous State Environmental Quality Review Act (see ECL art 8 [hereinafter SEQRA]) determination which found no significant environmental impacts … . * * *

… [O]ne cannot quarrel with the premise that New York State’s goal of transitioning to renewable energy is designed to benefit the public at large, and this project is in line with that goal … . * * *

… [P]etitioners’ submissions to respondent establish ” ‘that there are compelling reasons, economic or otherwise, which make it more feasible to [grant a use variance]’ ” than to use an alternative site … . Matter of Freepoint Solar LLC v Town of Athens Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 2024 NY Slip Op 06409, Third Dept 12-19-24

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for a rare rejection of an administrative finding as “arbitrary and capricious.” In light of the minimal environmental impact of a solar energy facility and the state policy supporting the transition to clean energy, the zoning board’s reasons for denying the use variance were deemed untenable.

 

, , , ,

AN ELECTRICAL SUBCONTRACTOR WHICH IS NOT LICENSED IN NEW YORK CITY CANNOT SUE FOR PAYMENT FOR WORK DONE IN THE CITY AND CANNOT FORECLOSE ON RELATED MECHANIC’S LIENS (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff electrical subcontractor, Mikoma Tech, did not prove it was licensed to perform electrical work in New York City. Therefore plaintiff could not sue for breach of contract or under a quantum meruit theory and could not foreclose on mechanic’s liens:

… [T]he complaint … failed to allege that Mikoma Tech was licensed to perform electrical work in New York City. As Mikoma Tech was not licensed to perform electrical work in the City, it may not recover against the defendants under a breach of contract or quantum meruit theory and has forfeited the right to foreclose on mechanic’s liens … . Mikoma Elec., LLC v Otek Bldrs., LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 06332, Second Dept 12-18-24

Practice Point: The rule requiring a license to perform electrical work in New York City is strictly construed. The unlicensed contractor cannot sue for payment and cannot foreclose mechanic’s liens.

 

, , ,

NYC MUST PAY CITY EMPLOYEES, RETIREES AND DEPENDENTS THE FULL COST, UP TO THE STATUTORY CAP, OF ANY HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN THE CITY OFFERS (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, determined NYC was required to pay city employees, retirees and dependents the full cost, up to the statutory cap, of any health insurance plan the city offers:

At issue on this appeal are the portions of Administrative Code of the City of New York § 12-126 requiring New York City (“City”) to pay, for active employees, retirees and their dependents, “the entire cost of health insurance coverage,” defined as “[a] program of hospital-surgical-medical benefits,” in an amount “not to exceed one hundred percent of the full cost of H.I.P.-H.M.O. on a category basis.” The statute requires that the City’s program includes “hospital[,] surgical [and] medical benefits.” The statute also requires the City to pay the full cost of the program, so long as that cost does not exceed the comparator in the statute. The question in this case is what section 12-126 requires the City to do when it offers more than one health insurance plan to employees and retirees. Petitioners argue that section 12-126 requires the City to pay, up to the statutory cap, for any plan it offers. The City contends that its section 12-126 obligation is satisfied if it pays up to the cap for one health insurance plan providing hospital, surgical and medical benefits. It argues that it may offer additional plans but has no statutory obligation to pay any portion of their cost, and explains that when it has paid for additional plans in the past, it has done so because it agreed to in collective bargaining, not because it was statutorily required to do so. The parties also disagree as to which health insurance plan sets the statutory cap for Medicare-eligible retirees.

We hold that section 12-126 requires the City to pay up to the statutory cap for any plan it offers to employees and retirees. Matter of NYC Org. of Pub. Serv. Retirees, Inc. v Campion, 2024 NY Slip Op 06291, CtApp 12-17-24

 

, , , , ,

AFTER THE DEATH OF THE COOPERATIVE OWNER, THE BOARD REFUSED TO TREAT PETITIONER AS DECEDENT’S “SPOUSE” WHICH WOULD AUTHORIZE AN AUTOMATIC TRANSFER OF DECEDENT’S LEASE AND SHARES; THE MAJORITY, OVER TWO DISSENTING OPINIONS, DETERMINED THE BOARD’S REFUSAL TO TREAT PETITIONER, WHO WAS NOT MARRIED TO DECEDENT, AS A “SPOUSE” DID NOT CONSTITUTE DISCRIMINATION BASED ON “MARITAL STATUS” (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Halligan, over two dissenting opinions, determined the cooperative board did not discriminate against the petitioner when it declined to treat petitioner as the decedent-cooperative-owner’s “spouse” for the purpose of transferring decedent’s shares to petitioner:

Petitioner Maryanne McCabe resided for 13 years in a New York City cooperative building with her “long-time romantic partner,” David Burrows. Upon Burrows’ death, he willed his real property, including his unit in the building, to petitioner, who then sought to acquire his lease and shares under a lease provision authorizing an automatic transfer to a shareholder’s “spouse.” The cooperative board declined to treat petitioner as a spouse but offered to consider whether she could retain the lease and shares under a clause covering a shareholder’s family member. Petitioner argues that the board’s failure to treat her as a spouse for purposes of the automatic transfer provision violated the prohibition against discrimination on the basis of marital status under the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) (see Administrative Code of City of New York § 8-107 [5]). We disagree. * * *

The two were neither married nor in a registered domestic partnership, and petitioner was never added as a shareholder of his unit. Burrows bequeathed his apartment to petitioner when he passed away … . * * *

The NYCHRL does not define “marital status,” but Black’s Law Dictionary defines it as “[t]he condition of being single, married, legally separated, divorced, or widowed” (Black’s Law Dictionary [12th ed 2024], marital status). Along the same lines is the general understanding: “when one is queried about one’s ‘marital status,’ the usual and complete answer would be expected to be a choice among ‘married,’ ‘single,’ etc.” … . A plain reading of the term, then, is that marital status reflects the legal condition of being single, married, legally separated, divorced, or widowed. Marital status turns on whether an individual has “participated or failed to participate in a marriage …”. Matter of McCabe v 511 W. 232nd Owners Corp., 2024 NY Slip Op 06290, CtApp 12-17-24

Practice Point: The cooperative board’s refusal to treat a “long time romantic partner” of the decedent-cooperative-owner as decedent’s “spouse” for purposes of an automatic transfer of the lease and shares did not constitute discrimination on the basis of “marital status” under the NYC Human Rights Law.

 

, , ,

THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE ARTICLE 78 PETITION/COMPLAINT AND THEN CONSIDERED THE MERITS OF THE PETITION/COMPLAINT WITHOUT ALLOWING RESPONDENT TO INTERPOSE AN ANSWER; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE PETITION/COMPLAINT ON GROUNDS NOT ADDRESSED BY THE UNDERLYING ADMINSTRATIVE RULING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge could not deny the motion to dismiss the Article 78 petition/complaint and then consider the merits and dismiss the petition/complaint before allowing the respondent to interpose an answer. In addition, the court did not have the authority to consider issues not addressed by the underlying administrative ruling. The action was brought by an owner of shares in a cooperative (petitioner) against the co-op board (respondent) which denied petitioner’s application to convert an office to a residential unit:

… Supreme Court erred by considering the merits of the petition/complaint and, in effect, denying the petition/complaint and dismissing the proceeding/action, after it denied the co-op’s motion, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the petition/complaint. In a CPLR article 78 proceeding, if a motion to dismiss the petition is denied, “the court shall permit the respondent to answer” … . Here, the court should not have decided the merits of the petition seeking relief under CPLR article 78, as the co-op had not yet filed an answer … , and it cannot be said, on this record, “that the facts are so fully presented in the parties’ papers that it is clear that no dispute as to the facts exists and no prejudice will result from the failure to require an answer” … .

Moreover, under all the circumstances, including that issue had not been joined and that branch of the co-op’s motion which pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the petition/complaint was not converted into a motion for summary judgment, there was no basis for the Supreme Court, in effect, to dismiss the proceeding/action after concluding that the co-op was not entitled to dismissal of the petition/complaint pursuant CPLR 3211(a) … .

Further, it has “long been the rule that judicial review of an administrative determination is limited to the grounds presented by the agency at the time of its determination” … . A reviewing court is “powerless to affirm the administrative action by substituting what it considers to be a more adequate or proper basis” … . Here, when the Supreme Court, in effect, affirmed the board’s denial of the application, the court improperly “surmise[d] or [*3]speculate[d] as to how or why” the board reached its determination and improperly relied on grounds not mentioned in the denial letter … . Matter of 195 N. Vil. Ave., LLC v 195 Apts., Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 06037, Second Dept 12-4-24

Practice Point: Once a judge denies a motion to dismiss a petition/complaint, the merits of the petition/complaint should not be considered before the respondent interposes an answer.

Practice Point: A judge reviewing an administrative ruling cannot decide the merits on grounds not addressed by the administrative ruling.

 

, , ,

THE LANDOWNER ABUTTNG A SIDEWALK IN NYC HAS A NONDELEGABLE DUTY TO MAINTAIN THE SIDEWALK; HERE THE LANDOWNER FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE PRESENCE OF ICE AND SNOW ON THE SIDEWALK BECAUSE IT DID NOT AVER WHEN THE SIDEWALK WAS LAST INSPECTED OR CLEANED PRIOR TO THE SLIP AND FALL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant landowner’s motion for summary judgment in this sidewalk ice and snow slip and fall case should not have been granted. The landowner failed to demonstrate it did not have constructive notice of the presence of snow and ice:

Section 7-210 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York imposes a nondelegable duty on certain landowners, which includes 149-53 14th Avenue, LLC, to maintain sidewalks abutting their land, including the removal of snow and ice …  “[T]he duty applies with full force notwithstanding an owner’s transfer of possession to a lessee or maintenance agreement with a nonowner” … . Landowners, however, are not strictly liable for all personal injuries that occur on the abutting sidewalk, as “section 7-210 adopts a duty and standard of care that accords with traditional tort principles of negligence and causation” … .

“A defendant property owner moving for summary judgment in an action predicated upon the presence of snow or ice has the burden of establishing, prima facie, that it neither created the snow or ice condition that allegedly caused the plaintiff to fall nor had actual or constructive notice of that condition” … .  “A defendant has constructive notice of a hazardous condition on property when the condition is visible and apparent, and has existed for a sufficient length of time to afford the defendant a reasonable opportunity to discover and remedy it” … . “To meet its initial burden on the issue of lack of constructive notice, the defendant must offer some evidence as to when the area in question was last cleaned or inspected relative to the time when the plaintiff fell” … .

Here, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that 149-53 14th Avenue, LLC, did not have constructive notice of the alleged snow and ice condition that caused the plaintiff to fall. The evidence submitted by the defendants failed to establish when the sidewalk was last cleaned or inspected relative to when the plaintiff fell … . Marinis v Loschiavo, 2024 NY Slip Op 05970, Second Dept 11-27-24

Practice Point: Pursuant to the NYC Administrative Code a landowner abutting a sidewalk has a nondelegable duty to maintain the sidewalk, which includes removal of ice and snow. The landowner can demonstrate it did not have constructive notice of the presence of ice and snow by proof the sidewalk was inspected or cleaned close in time to the slip and fall, not the case here.

 

, , , , ,

THE “MINISTERIAL EXCEPTION” IS GROUNDED IN THE FIRST AMEMDMENT AND MAY RESTRICT A STATE AGENCY’S REVIEW OF EMPLOYMENT DECISIONS MADE BY RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS; THE EXCEPTION IS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, NOT A JURISDICTIONAL BAR, TO A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT ACTION UNDER THE NYS HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Halligan, reversing the New York State Division of Human Rights (DHR) and the Appellate Division, determined the so-called “ministerial exception” was not a jurisdictional bar to the Nigerian priest’s, Ibhawa’s, hostile work environment claim under the NYS Human Rights Law. The “ministerial exception” is grounded in the First Amendment and may restrict state interference with employment decisions made by religious institutions.. The Court of Appeals clarified that the ministerial exception is an affirmative defense in an employment discrimination action against a religious institution, not a jurisdictional bar to bringing the case:

Ibhawa filed an employment complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights (DHR) in November 2020, claiming that the Diocese had engaged in discriminatory employment practices in violation of the New York Human Rights Law (see Executive Law art 15). Ibhawa alleged that he had experienced racial discrimination at the Diocese, including from an employee who directed a racial slur at him and a parishioner who made xenophobic remarks to him. He further alleged that the Diocesan officials to whom he reported the incidents declined to investigate them, questioned his decision to terminate the employee who had used a racial slur, and made “highly insulting and offensive” remarks about “foreign priests.” At a subsequent meeting, two Diocesan officials offered to buy Ibhawa a plane ticket to Nigeria and told him that the “Bishop could remove [his] faculties.” Shortly afterwards, the Diocese informed Ibhawa that his employment had been terminated and his priestly faculties removed, which meant that that he could not apply for a position as a priest in the Diocese. The Diocese eventually hired a white priest to replace him. Based on these assertions, Ibhawa alleged claims of hostile work environment and unlawful termination on the basis of race and national origin. He sought, among other remedies, compensatory and punitive damages. * * *

DHR’s order dismissing Ibhawa’s hostile work environment claim was affected by an error of law. After noting the parties’ agreement that Ibhawa was “a priest serving as the pastor (Parish Administrator) of a church,” DHR found that his complaint “comes under the ministerial exception (relative to the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution).” On that basis, DHR concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over Ibhawa’s claims. This determination was contrary to the U.S. Supreme Court’s express holding that the “exception operates as an affirmative defense to an otherwise cognizable claim, not a jurisdictional bar” … . Matter of Ibhawa v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 2024 NY Slip Op 05872, CtApp 11-26-24

Practice Point: The “ministerial exception” is grounded in the First Amendment and may restrict a state agency’s review of employment decisions made by religious institutions. The exception is an affirmative defense, not a jurisdictional bar, to a hostile work environment action brought by a priest against his employer.

 

,

THE NYS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH’S (DOH’S) UPDATED GUIDELINES WHICH PROHIBIT PHYSCIANS WHO TREAT CANCER PATIENTS FROM DISPENSING MEDICATIONS WHICH ADDRESS THE SIDE EFFECTS OF CANCER TREATMENTS ARE “IRRATIONAL” (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Garry, determined the NYS Department of Health’s (DOH’s) definition of “oncological protocol” was irrational. The petitioner provides physician-care to cancer patients, including Medicaid recipients. Physicians who provide care to cancer patients can dispense medications (72-hour supplies) pursuant to the DOH’s “oncological protocol.” In the past, petitioner was dispensing medications which addressed the side effects of cancer treatments, including nausea, pain, vitamins, antibiotics and antipsychotics. Under the 2021 update to the DOH’s guidelines, the oncological protocol no longer covered medications which address the side effects of cancer treatments. That update was deemed “irrational” by the Third Department:

The record before us is replete with evidence of industry guidelines and authoritative medical literature strongly suggesting that respondents’ definition may inhibit the provision of adequate healthcare to oncology patients. This includes evidence of the need for ancillary or concomitant administration of medications presumably excluded from the definition in order to enhance the effects of cancer treatments and/or prevent fatal complications arising therefrom. That evidence also clearly contemplates supportive care medications being administered as part of cancer treatment regimens in order to address the often debilitating side effects of such treatment. Given the complete absence of any medical basis for the line drawn here, and guided by the Legislature’s intent to ensure that its general prohibition against prescriber-dispensing did not unreasonably impede the provision of adequate healthcare services in the context of oncology, we cannot find that the definition of oncological protocol before us is rational. Matter of North Shore Hematology-Oncology Assoc., P.C. v New York State Dept. of Health, 2024 NY Slip Op 05165, Third Dept 10-17-24

Practice Point: Here the Third Department deemed the Department of Health’s guideline which prohibited physicians who treat cancer patients from dispensing medications which address the side effects of cancer treatments “irrational” and therefore unenforceable.

 

,

THE HEARING OFFICER RECOMMENDED THAT JUSTICE DD, A SEVERELY DISABLED MAN, REMAIN AT HIS CURRENT PLACEMENT IN MASSACHUSETTS AND NOT BE MOVED TO A NEW PLACEMENT IN NEW YORK; THE COMMISSIONER OF THE OFFICE FOR PEOPLE WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES (OPWDD), NEARLY A YEAR LATER, REJECTED THE HEARING OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION AND ORDERED THE NEW PLACEMENT; BECAUSE JUSTICE DD’S CONDITION HAD WORSENED DURING THAT TIME, THE COMMISSIONER’S DETERMINATION WAS ANNULLED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department annulled the determination of the Office for People with Developmental Disabilities (OPWDD). The Commissioner of the OPWDD rejected the hearing officer’s findings and ordered that Justice DD, the disabled man, be removed from his current placement in Massachusetts and placed in New York. The Third Department held that the nearly one-year delay between the hearing officer’s recommendation that Justice DD remain placed in Massachusetts and the Commissioner’s rejection of the recommendation, during which Justice DD’s condition had deteriorated, required annulment of the Commissioner’s ruling:

… [D]espite the Legislature’s use of the word “shall” in specifying that respondent [the Commissioner] is to issue a determination within 30 days of adjournment of the hearing, this language was merely directory based upon the absence of any “specific consequence to flow from the administrative agency’s failure to act in violation of the time limit” … .

“When an administrative body fails to comply with procedural provisions that are merely directory, relief will be granted only if petitioners show that substantial prejudice resulted from the noncompliance” … . We find that petitioners have made such a showing here and, as a result, respondent “must face the consequences of [her] delays” … . Matter of Hannah DD. v Neifeld, 2024 NY Slip Op 05167, Third Dept 10-17-24

Practice Point: The regulation that requires the Commissioner of the OPWDD to make a ruling on the placement of a disabled person within 30 days of the adjournment of the hearing is merely “directory,” not “mandatory.” However, if, as here, the failure to issue the ruling within 30 days results in prejudice to the disabled person, the delay is a valid ground for annulment of the Commissioner’s ruling.​

 

, , ,

A NURSING HOME CAN BRING A PLENARY ACTION SOUNDING IN BREACH OF CONTRACT AGAINST THE AGENCY WHICH DENIED MEDICAID COVERAGE FOR A RESIDENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff nursing home (Kings Harbor) properly brought a plenary action against the agency which denied Medicaid coverage for a resident. Plaintiff’s remedy was not limited to bringing an Article 78 proceeding on behalf of the resident. The action against the agency properly sounded in breach of contract:

“It is well established that a nursing home may, as here, bring a plenary action in its own right against the agency designated to determine Medicaid eligibility” … . The plaintiff’s “private financial interest in recovering expenditures rendered creates a relationship of purchaser and seller, thereby permitting it to bring a plenary action in its own right against the governmental agency designated to declare eligibility” … .

Furthermore, the plaintiff is not bound by the resident’s failure to exercise his separate right to an administrative appeal of the denial of Medicaid benefits … . Thus, the authorizations executed by the resident allowing the plaintiff to represent him “in all matters pertaining to [his] Medicaid Assistance application and follow up activities” did not impair the plaintiff’s right to commence its own plenary action independent from the pursuit of administrative review … .

“[I]nasmuch as [the] plaintiff was not bound by the administrative determination denying the [resident’s] application for medical assistance, and has commenced a plenary action in its own right, [the] plaintiff is not bound by the four-month Statute of Limitations contained in CPLR 217” … . * * *

… [T]he purchaser/seller relationship between a nursing home provider and the governmental agency designated to declare Medicaid eligibility is construed as a contractual relationship, the alleged breach of which gives rise to a breach of contract cause of action … . Kings Harbor Multicare Ctr. v Townes, 2024 NY Slip Op 05093, Second Dept 10-16-24

Practice Point: An action by a nursing home against the agency which denied Medicaid coverage for a resident sounds in breach of contract and is properly brought as a plenary action, not as an Article 78 proceeding.

 

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