The anatomy of challenging an administrative determination by an appeals board affirming the findings and decision of an administrative law judge

A police officer issued Plaintiff a traffic summons for operating a motor vehicle while using a cell phone in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law §1225-d. Following an administrative hearing, at which the Plaintiff did not testify and appeared solely by counsel, an administrative law judge [ALJ] found Petitioner guilty of violating VTL §1225-d. Plaintiff appealed the ALJ's determination but the Administrative Appeals Board affirmed the ALJ's decision. Plaintiff then initiated a CPLR Article 78 proceeding in Supreme Court challenging the Appeals Board's determination, which action was transferred to the Appellate Division pursuant to CPLR §7804(g).

The Appellate Division, citing Matter of Mannino v Department of Motor Vehs. of State of N.Y.-Traffic Violations Div., 101 AD3d 880, noted that "[to] annul an administrative determination made after a hearing directed by law at which evidence is taken, a court must conclude that the record lacks substantial evidence* to support the determination". 

As the Mannino court, [supra] opined "... courts may not ... reject the choice made by [an administrative agency] where the evidence is conflicting and room for choice exists" and "deference must be given to the fact-finding and credibility determinations of the administrative agency"**.

Further, explained the Appellate Division, credibility determinations were for the ALJ to make and there is no indication that the Plaintiff's "right to cross-examine the ... officer was so circumscribed as to deprive him of a fair hearing. " The court then confirmed the Appeals Board's decision, denied Plaintiff's petition, and dismissed the proceeding on the merits, with costs.

* Substantial evidence, said the court, is "such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact."

** See Matter of LaChance v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs., 159 AD3d 1014 at 1015.

Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.