The New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings [OATH] reversed the decision of an OATH hearing officer made after a hearing what dismissed charges filed against Plaintiff and:
[1] reinstated charges filed against Plaintiff alleging two violations of the Administrative Code of the City of New York; and
[2] imposed $50,000 in civil penalties against Plaintiff. Contending OATH's action was arbitrary and capricious and not based upon substantial evidence in the record.
Plaintiff filed a petition pursuant to Article 78 of the CPLR challenging OATH's action. Supreme Court granted Plaintiff's petition and OATH, and the New York City Department of Buildings [Buildings], appealed the Supreme Court's ruling.
The Appellate Division vacated the lower court's judgment and, confirming OATH's ruling, dismissed Petitioner's Article 78 action and awarded OATH and Buildings one bill of costs.
Citing Matter of Doran v Town of Babylon, 219 AD3d 832, the Appellate Division explained that "Pursuant to CPLR 7804(g), when a petition filed in the Supreme Court seeks relief pursuant to CPLR Article 78 and raises a question of whether an administrative determination is supported by substantial evidence, the proceeding should be transferred from the Supreme Court to the Appellate Division to address that issue" although "[before] transferring the matter, the Supreme Court 'shall first dispose of such other objections as could terminate the proceeding, including but not limited to lack of jurisdiction, statute of limitations and res judicata, without reaching the substantial evidence issue'".
In this instance Plaintiff's petition raised the issue of whether OATH's determination was supported by substantial evidence, and the parties did not raise, and the Supreme Court did not address, any objection that could have terminated the proceeding within the meaning of CPLR 7804(g).
Although Supreme Court should have transferred the proceeding to the Appellate Division, the Appellate Division decided that "because the record is now before us, [it would] review the administrative determination de novo" and observed:
1. "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";
2. "Substantial evidence is related to the charge or controversy and involves a weighing of the quality and quantity of the proof; the term means such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact" .... "Stated otherwise, "[s]ubstantial evidence is 'less than a preponderance of the evidence' and 'demands only that a given inference is reasonable and plausible, not necessarily the most probable'"; and
3. "When there is conflicting evidence or different inferences may be drawn, the duty of weighing the evidence and making the choice rests solely upon the administrative agency". In other words, "[w]here substantial evidence exists, the reviewing court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency, even if the court would have decided the matter differently".
Finding that OATH's determination was supported by substantial evidence and that "the civil penalties imposed for maintaining the illegal conversion ... was not so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness", the Appellate Division sustained OATH's and Building's appeal.
Click HERE to access the Appellate Divisions decision posted on the Internet.