The New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings [OATH] affirmed so much of a determination of a hearing officer, as, after a hearing, found that Petitioner in the administrative appeal violated Administrative Code of the City of New York §28-210.3 and directed the petitioner to pay a civil penalty of $1,000 per day for a period of 39 days.
The Appellate Division confirmed OATH's ruling "on the merits," without costs or disbursements.
Petitioner had filed an administrative appeal from so much of the hearing officer's determination as imposed a civil penalty of $1,000 per day for a period of 39 days. Petitioner contended that the violation of Administrative Code §28-210.3 at issue was cured almost immediately after the Petitioner received notice of the violation and, therefore, the daily penalties should be limited to only two days.
OATH, however, had affirmed so much of the hearing officer's determination as directed the Petitioner to pay a civil penalty of $1,000 per day for a period of 39 days from November 9, 2019, to December 17, 2019, December 17, 2019 being "the date the violation was corrected according to a sworn certificate of correction of the Petitioner's owner".
Citing Matter of Call-A-Head Portable Toilets, Inc. v New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 213 AD3d 842, the Appellate Division said "Judicial review of an administrative determination made after a hearing required by law, and at which evidence was taken, is limited to whether that determination is supported by substantial evidence", observing that "Substantial evidence 'means such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact'".
Here, contrary to Petitioner's contention, the Appellate Division opined that OATH's determination directing the Petitioner to pay a civil penalty of $1,000 per day for a period of 39 days was supported by substantial evidence, including the sworn statement by the Petitioner's owner in the certificate of correction identifying December 17, 2019, as the date the violation was corrected.
Noting that judicial review of administrative determinations is confined to the facts and record adduced before the agency, the court opined that Petitioner's reliance upon evidence that it did not introduce at the hearing was improper.
Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.