Plaintiff challenged the determination of the City of
The Appellate Division unanimously modified the Supreme Court's ruling "on the law and facts" and denied Plaintiff's CPLR Article 78 petition "in its entirety", without costs.
The Appellate Division opined that Plaintiff "failed to demonstrate that the denial of her application [for a religious exemption] was arbitrary and capricious or affected by an error of law", finding that the Panel had provided a sufficient explanation for its decision, stating that its decision "was based on the reasoning set forth in the denial letter from respondent New York City Police Department (NYPD)." That denial letter, said the court, in turn, found that Plaintiff's application contained "a generic statement that does not support [her] request," relied on false information or misinformation, "failed to explain how [her] religious tenets conflict with the vaccine requirement," and "had no demonstrated history of refusing medications or vaccines".
Concluding that Supreme Court "should not have rejected either the information supplied in the verified answer or two affirmations submitted by respondents," the Appellate Division observed "[W]here, as here, there was no administrative hearing, an agency may submit an official's affidavit to explain the information that was before the agency and the rationale for its decision." The Appellate Division also noted it "may consider such an affidavit even though it was not submitted during the administrative process", citing Matter of Marsteller, 217 AD3d at 544.
Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.