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.