Citing Matter of Peckham v Calogero, 54 AD3d 27, affd 12 NY3d 424, the Appellate Division noted that remanding the results of an administrative hearing to the agency which made the determination is typically made by a court in the event "the agency has made the type of substantial error that constitutes an irregularity in vital matters".
In the instant appeal the Appellate Division opined that such a remand to the New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings [OATH] "would not have been appropriate".
The Appellate Division explained that "Contrary to [Petitioner's] assertion, the reviewer who issued the disqualification letter for [Petitioner's] first complaint did not need to testify at the hearing" as the record shows that Petitioner received the disqualification letter because his video and photographic evidence did not support his allegation that the subject vehicle was idling.
In contrast, the Appellate Division said the reviewer who testified concerning the hearing which resulted in disqualification letters tied to the Petitioner's second, third, and fourth complaints involving Petitioner's alleged violation of Administrative Code §24-112 (a) stemmed from repeatedly submitting the same evidence in support of the appeals of those three complaints.
Holding that Supreme Court properly transferred the case to the Appellate Division pursuant to under CPLR 7804(g) because Petitioner raised an issue of substantial evidence by challenging factual findings made by the Hearing Officer, the court found that OATH's determination was supported by substantial evidence as the record shows that Petitioner received a disqualification letter because his video and photographic evidence did not support his allegation that the subject vehicle was idling.
As these three additional complaints set out "nearly identical allegations, photographs, and videos, changing only the address of where the violation occurred and one letter in the vehicle's license plate," the Appellate Division opined that "[it] is reasonable to infer that [Petitioner] was attempting to mislead respondent New York City Department of Environmental Protection and circumvent his previous disqualifications".
The Appellate Division then opined that "This deception established a violation under Administrative Code §24-112(a), which prohibits persons from "knowingly mak[ing] a false or misleading statement" to the department".
Further, the Court's decision states "Petitioner's claim of agency bias is 'unavailing in the absence of any proof that the outcome of the proceeding flowed from the alleged bias'".
Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posed on the Internet.