ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IS NOT USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IN THE SUMMARIES OF JUDICIAL AND QUASI-JUDICIAL DECISIONS PREPARED BY NYPPL

August 09, 2023

Judicial review of an administrative decision made without a formal hearing is limited

In a hybrid proceeding pursuant to CPLR Article 78 to review a resolution of the Town Board Supreme Court granted branches of a cross-motion of the Town Board pursuant to CPLR 3211 and 3212 to dismiss certain causes of action in the Plaintiffs' petition and complaint. Plaintiffs appealed the court's decision to the Appellate Division.

The Appellate Division, in a 3 to 2 decision, affirmed the Supreme Court's action and judgment, explaining:

1.  In reviewing an administrative determination, this Court must consider only whether the "determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion;" and

2. In instances where judicial review involves an administrative determination made without a formal hearing, such judicial review is limited to whether the determination was arbitrary and capricious, or without rational basis in the administrative record.*

One of the causes of action alleged that the determination of the Town Board was arbitrary, capricious, or irrational. Here the Appellate Division held that the Town Board had demonstrated that its determination to issue the resolution was rational and not arbitrary or capricious and thus was properly dismissed by Supreme Court.

Addressing the other relevant cause of action involving the Plaintiffs' allegation that the resolution of the Town Board was not supported by substantial evidence, the Appellate Division opined that the substantial evidence standard of review "is inapplicable here as the challenged determinations did not arise from a quasi-judicial hearing required by law," citing CPLR 7803[4] and Matter of 1300 Franklin Ave. Members, LLC v Board of Trustees of Inc. Vil. of Garden City, 62 AD3d at 1007. Accordingly, the Supreme Court also properly dismissed this cause of action which sought to annul the Town Board's determination "for lack of substantial evidence".

* See Matter of Peckham v Calogero, 12 NY3d 424.

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

CAUTION

Subsequent court and administrative rulings, or changes to laws, rules and regulations may have modified or clarified or vacated or reversed the decisions summarized here. Accordingly, these summaries should be Shepardized® or otherwise checked to make certain that the most recent information is being considered by the reader.
THE MATERIAL ON THIS WEBSITE IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY. AGAIN, CHANGES IN LAWS, RULES, REGULATIONS AND NEW COURT AND ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS MAY AFFECT THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS LAWBLOG. THE MATERIAL PRESENTED IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND THE USE OF ANY MATERIAL POSTED ON THIS WEBSITE, OR CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING SUCH MATERIAL, DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP.
New York Public Personnel Law Blog Editor Harvey Randall served as Principal Attorney, New York State Department of Civil Service; Director of Personnel, SUNY Central Administration; Director of Research, Governor’s Office of Employee Relations; and Staff Judge Advocate General, New York Guard. Consistent with the Declaration of Principles jointly adopted by a Committee of the American Bar Association and a Committee of Publishers and Associations, the material posted to this blog is presented with the understanding that neither the publisher nor NYPPL and, or, its staff and contributors are providing legal advice to the reader and in the event legal or other expert assistance is needed, the reader is urged to seek such advice from a knowledgeable professional.
Copyright 2009-2024 - Public Employment Law Press. Email: nyppl@nycap.rr.com.