New York Administrative Procedure Act

[Admin]

https://ballotpedia.org/New_York_Administrative_Procedure_Act

New York Administrative Procedure Act

[Admin]

...

[Admin]

Jurisdiction: New York (State & Fed.)


    15A ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND PROCEDURE 17,088
        15AKey Number Symbol725 1

    Donohue v. McGovern
    1. Donohue v. McGovern
    Supreme Court, Albany County, New York, Special Term. July 10, 1952 114 N.Y.S.2d 581
    Headnote: Allegation that petitioner believed that denial of application for accidental disability retirement allowance was arbitrary, whimsical, capricious and without reason was wholly insufficient to state any ground for annulment of determination denying application.
    Document Preview: Proceeding in the matter of the application of Josephine H. Donohue, individually and as administratrix of the estate of Arthur J. Donohue, to review and annul the determination of J. Raymond McGovern, State Comptroller of the State of New York, as trustee of New York State Employees' Retirement System, denying application of Arthur J. Donohue for accidental disability retirement allowance. On respondent's motion to strike out specified allegations of petition, the Supreme Court, Albany County, Special Term, Hamm, J., held that allegations reviewing evidence received at hearing and stating petitioner's conclusions as to proper inferences to be drawn from the evidence were insufficient. Motion granted with leave to amend.

    15A ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND PROCEDURE 17,088
        15AIV Powers and Proceedings of Administrative Agencies, Officers and Agents 7,436
            15AIV(C) Rules, Regulations, and Other Policymaking 718
                15AKey Number Symbol412 Construction 1
                    15AKey Number Symbol412.1 In general. 1

    KeyCite Yellow Flag
    Orens v. Novello
    2. Orens v. Novello
    Court of Appeals of New York. November 14, 2002 99 N.Y.2d 180
    Headnote: When different terms are used in various parts of a statute or rule, it is reasonable to assume that a distinction between them is intended.
    5 Cases that cite this legal issue
    Document Preview: HEALTH - Discipline. Lay member on disciplinary committee could be physician's assistant.

    15A ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND PROCEDURE 17,088
        15AI In General 19
            15AKey Number Symbol1005 Constitutional and Statutory Provisions in General 14
                15AKey Number Symbol1006 In general 1

    KeyCite Yellow Flag
    Smith v. Berryhill
    3. Smith v. Berryhill
    Supreme Court of the United States. May 28, 2019 587 U.S. ----
    Headnote: The Social Security Act and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) are different statutes, and courts must remain sensitive to their differences.  5 U.S.C.A. § 551 et seq.; Social Security Act, § 1 et seq., 42 U.S.C.A. § 301 et seq.
    Document Preview: SOCIAL SECURITY — SSI. SSA Appeals Council's dismissal of claimant's untimely request for review of ALJ's merits decision is "final decision" subject to judicial review.

    15A ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND PROCEDURE 17,088
        15AI In General 19
            15AKey Number Symbol1005 Constitutional and Statutory Provisions in General 14
                15AKey Number Symbol1007 Agencies and proceedings affected. 13

    KeyCite Red Flag
    New York v. Gutierrez
    4. New York v. Gutierrez
    United States District Court, E.D. New York. March 9, 2009 623 F.Supp.2d 301
    Headnote: There are three factors relevant to whether a compact authority warrants the quasi-federal agency classification, and thus is subject to Administrative Procedure Act (APA) review:  (1) whether the originating compact is governed, either explicitly or implicitly, by federal procurement regulations;  (2) whether a private right of action is available under the compact;  and (3) the level of federal participation.  5 U.S.C.A. § 701 et seq.
    1 Case that cites this legal issue
    Document Preview: LITIGATION - Appeals. Question of whether quasi-federal agency was entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity was immediately appealable.
    KeyCite Red Flag
    New York v. Gutierrez
    5. New York v. Gutierrez
    United States District Court, E.D. New York. March 9, 2009 623 F.Supp.2d 301
    Headnote: In determining the degree of federal participation in a compact agency, in analyzing whether the agency warrants quasi-federal agency classification and is thus subject to Administrative Procedure Act (APA) review, several considerations are relevant: Congressional approval of the compact, whether there is a federal role in appointing compact agency members, whether federal funding is authorized for the compact agency, and whether the compact furthers a federal objective.  5 U.S.C.A. § 701 et seq.
    1 Case that cites this legal issue
    Document Preview: LITIGATION - Appeals. Question of whether quasi-federal agency was entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity was immediately appealable.
    KeyCite Red Flag
    New York v. Gutierrez
    6. New York v. Gutierrez
    United States District Court, E.D. New York. March 9, 2009 623 F.Supp.2d 301
    Headnote: The federal participation inquiry for determining whether a compact agency warrants quasi-federal agency classification, and is thus subject to Administrative Procedure Act (APA) review, is fact-intensive and case-specific; the presence of one or more federal participation factors does not automatically convert the agency into a quasi-federal agency.  5 U.S.C.A. § 701 et seq.
    1 Case that cites this legal issue
    Document Preview: LITIGATION - Appeals. Question of whether quasi-federal agency was entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity was immediately appealable.
    KeyCite Red Flag
    New York v. Gutierrez
    7. New York v. Gutierrez
    United States District Court, E.D. New York. March 9, 2009 623 F.Supp.2d 301
    Headnote: Whether Congress designates an entity as a federal agency does not end the inquiry as to whether the entity in fact operates as a federal agency, in analysis of whether entity is subject to accountability mechanism of Administrative Procedure Act (APA).  5 U.S.C.A. § 702.
    Document Preview: LITIGATION - Appeals. Question of whether quasi-federal agency was entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity was immediately appealable.
    Hicks v. Gibson
    8. Hicks v. Gibson
    Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York. March 21, 2003 303 A.D.2d 1021
    Headnote: Article of state constitution providing that no rule or regulation made by any state department, board, bureau, officer, authority, or commission be effective until it is filed in the office of the Department of State applied to state agencies or departments and did not apply to county agency.  McKinney's Const. Art. 4, § 8.
    Document Preview: CIVIL RIGHTS - Prisons. Regulation affording legal services to prisoners did not give attorneys the right to visit prisoners
    Gruen v. Chase
    9. Gruen v. Chase
    Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York. May 8, 1995 215 A.D.2d 481
    Headnote: State Administrative Procedure Act is applicable solely to adjudicatory proceedings required by law to be made on record.  McKinney's State Administrative Procedure Act § 102, subd. 3.
    Document Preview: Due Process. Due process rights of university students were not violated by not having legal representation at university disciplinary proceeding.
    Farkas v. Ellis
    10. Farkas v. Ellis
    United States District Court, S.D. New York. August 2, 1991 768 F.Supp. 476
    Headnote: Judicial review provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act were inapplicable to challenged actions taken by administrator appointed under consent decree, as he was not an "agency" of the United States.  5 U.S.C.A. § 701.
    Document Preview: Plaintiffs moved for recusal.   The District Court, William C. Conner, J., held that:  (1) allegations did not provide basis for recusal, and (2) administrator appointed under consent decree was not an agency of the United States for purposes of review under the Administrative Procedure Act. Ordered accordingly.
    1777 Penfield Road Corp. v. Morrison-Vega
    11. 1777 Penfield Road Corp. v. Morrison-Vega
    Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York. January 24, 1986 116 A.D.2d 1035
    Headnote: State Administrative Procedure Act applies only to agencies of the state government and excludes from its coverage local entities.  McKinney's State Administrative Procedure Act, § 102, subd. 1.
    2 Cases that cite this legal issue
    Document Preview: Article 78 proceeding was brought to annul determination by city director of property conservation and inspection services requiring building owner to erect pedestrian walkway in front of building.   The Supreme Court, Monroe County, Davis, J., transferred the proceeding.   The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, held that:  (1) substantial evidence supported determination requiring building owner to erect pedestrian walkway after 200–pound piece of cast iron constituting part of facade of building detached itself from building and plummeted to sidewalk below, and (2) State Administrative Procedure Act applied only to agencies of state government and excluded from its coverage local entities. Determination confirmed, and petition dismissed.
    KeyCite Yellow Flag
    International Tel. & Tel. Corp., Communications Equipment and Systems Div. v. Local 134, Intern. Broth. of Elec. Workers, AFL-CIO
    12. International Tel. & Tel. Corp., Communications Equipment and Systems Div. v. Local 134, Intern. Broth. of Elec. Workers, AFL-CIO
    Supreme Court of the United States January 14, 1975 419 U.S. 428
    Headnote: Intermediate proceedings within agency may be within scope-of-application section of Administrative Procedure Act by virtue of fact that they are "agency process for the formulation of an order" rather than because their product is a "part" of the final disposition.  5 U.S.C.A. §§ 551, 551(6, 7), 554;  National Labor Relations Act, §§ 8(b)(4)(i, ii)(D), 10(k) as amended 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 158(b)(4)(i, ii)(D), 160(k).
    2 Cases that cite this legal issue
    Document Preview: A labor union appealed from an order of the National Labor Relations Board finding that the union had committed an unfair labor practice in a jurisdictional dispute. The Court of Appeals, 486 F.2d 863, held that it was improper for the same person to perform the functions of hearing officer at the hearing concerning charges and to subsequently prosecute the unfair labor practice charge. Enforcement was thus denied. On grant of certiorari, the Supreme Court, Mr. Justice Rehnquist, held that a section 10(k) determination by the National Labor Relations Board is not alone a 'final disposition' within the meaning of 'order' and 'adjudication' in the definitions section of the Administrative Procedure Act, nor does such a determination constitute 'agency process (leading) to the formulation of an order' within such definitional section; and proceedings under such section of the National Labor Relations Act are not within the...
    KeyCite Yellow Flag
    International Tel. & Tel. Corp., Communications Equipment and Systems Div. v. Local 134, Intern. Broth. of Elec. Workers, AFL-CIO
    13. International Tel. & Tel. Corp., Communications Equipment and Systems Div. v. Local 134, Intern. Broth. of Elec. Workers, AFL-CIO
    Supreme Court of the United States January 14, 1975 419 U.S. 428
    Headnote: Prototype of intermediate proceeding that is "agency process for the formulation of an order" within Administrative Procedure Act is hearing before administrative law judge who makes findings of fact and conclusions of law and initially decides the case, and whose recommended decision "becomes the decision of the agency  * * *  unless there is an appeal to, or review on motion of, the agency."  5 U.S.C.A. §§ 554, 554(d), 557(b).
    9 Cases that cite this legal issue
    Document Preview: A labor union appealed from an order of the National Labor Relations Board finding that the union had committed an unfair labor practice in a jurisdictional dispute. The Court of Appeals, 486 F.2d 863, held that it was improper for the same person to perform the functions of hearing officer at the hearing concerning charges and to subsequently prosecute the unfair labor practice charge. Enforcement was thus denied. On grant of certiorari, the Supreme Court, Mr. Justice Rehnquist, held that a section 10(k) determination by the National Labor Relations Board is not alone a 'final disposition' within the meaning of 'order' and 'adjudication' in the definitions section of the Administrative Procedure Act, nor does such a determination constitute 'agency process (leading) to the formulation of an order' within such definitional section; and proceedings under such section of the National Labor Relations Act are not within the...
    Dimaren v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
    14. Dimaren v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
    United States District Court, S.D. New York. September 19, 1974 398 F.Supp. 556
    Headnote: The Administrative Procedure Act governs all administrative proceedings except to the extent that another statute exempts the agency from coverage.  5 U.S.C.A. § 559.
    Document Preview: Alien and her minor child brought suit challenging the denial of a stay of deportation by the District Director of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. The District Court, Motley, J., held, inter alia, that (1) the May, 1970 policy directive of the Service, indicating that a stay of deportation, in respect to an alien applicant who is the parent of a child or children born in the United States during the parent's stay, should be granted only if 'compelling factors' that are present, constituted a 'rule' within the meaning of the Administrative Procedure Act, but it was nevertheless exempt from the rulemaking requirements of the Act since it was an interpretative rule or general statement of policy, (2) the policy directive did not alter the existing right of plaintiff to have her stay application granted in the 'discretion' of the district director, and (3) the district director's denial of plaintiff's alien's application was not improper...
    KeyCite Red Flag
    Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner
    15. Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner
    Supreme Court of the United States May 22, 1967 387 U.S. 136
    Headnote: Congress intended that Administrative Procedure Act cover a broad spectrum of administrative actions.  5 U.S.C.A. §§ 701(a), 704, 701-704, 702.
    19 Cases that cite this legal issue
    Document Preview: Action by drug companies and their association against Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare and Commissioner of Food and Drugs. Appeals were taken from a declaratory judgment and injunction granted in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, 228 F.Supp. 855, which held that regulations issued and promulgated by defendants were null and void. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, 352 F.2d 286, reversed, and certiorari was granted. The Supreme Court, Mr. Justice Harlan, held, inter alia, that issues were fit for judicial resolution and hardship from precluding court consideration to plaintiffs, which were nearly all of prescription drug manufacturers, was demonstrated, warranting entertainment of action for pre-enforcement injunctive and declaratory judgment remedies concerning statutory construction of Commissioner of Food and Drugs by way of regulations requiring labels, advertisements, and other printed matter relating to...
    KeyCite Red Flag
    Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath
    16. Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath
    Supreme Court of the United States February 20, 1950 339 U.S. 33
    Headnote: Under the Administrative Procedure Act establishing formal requirements with respect to notice of hearing and issues, and agency procedure, to be applicable in every case of adjudication "required by statute" to be determined on the record after opportunity for agency hearing, quoted phrase exempts only those hearings which administrative agencies may hold by regulation, rule, custom or special dispensation, and does not exempt those held by compulsion;  and limiting words are inapplicable to hearings, requirement for which has been read into a statute by the court in order to save the statute from invalidity.  Administrative Procedure Act, § 5, 5 U.S.C.A. § 1004.
    113 Cases that cite this legal issue
    Document Preview: Habeas corpus proceeding by Wong Yang Sung, opposed by Tom C. Clark, Attorney General of the United States, and Watson B. Miller, United States Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization, to secure release from custody after petitioner's arrest by immigration officials on a charge of being in the United States unlawfully. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Per Curiam, rendered a judgment, 84 U.S.App.D.C. 419, 174 F.2d 158, which affirmed a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Alexander Holtzoff, J., dismissing the writ, 80 F.Supp. 235, and petitioner brought certiorari. A motion was made to substitute J. Howard McGrath as a party respondent. The Supreme Court granted certiorari, 338 U.S. 812, 70 S.Ct. 66, and granted the motion, and in an opinion by Mr. Justice Jackson, held that administrative hearings in deportation cases must conform to requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. Judgment...

    15A ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND PROCEDURE 17,088
        15AI In General 19
            15AKey Number Symbol1008 Validity of Statutes 4
                15AKey Number Symbol1013 Powers and proceedings of administrative agencies in general. 2

    Mass v. Blum
    17. Mass v. Blum
    Supreme Court, Albany County, New York. February 22, 1982 112 Misc.2d 898
    Headnote: Section of Administrative Procedure Act providing that more definite and detailed statement shall be furnished whenever agency finds that statement is not sufficiently definite or not sufficiently detailed and that the finding as to sufficiency of definiteness or detail or its failure or refusal to furnish more detailed statement shall not be subject to judicial review is not inescapably unconstitutional as violating procedural due process.  McKinney's State Administrative Procedure Act § 301, subd. 2;  U.S.C.A.Const.Amends. 5, 14;  Const.Art. 1, § 6.
    Document Preview: An action was filed challenging the constitutionality of the section of the Administrative Procedure Act providing that the finding of an agency as to the sufficiency of definiteness or detail of the statement or its failure or refusal to furnish a more detailed statement shall not be subject to judicial review.   The Supreme Court, Special Term, Albany County, Con G. Cholakis, J., held that the statute does not violate due process since the very arguments which may have prompted the action could be made at the administrative hearing and, if that ruling is adverse, a separate proceeding may be commenced. Ordered accordingly.
    Calzadilla v. Dooley
    18. Calzadilla v. Dooley
    Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York. January 18, 1968 29 A.D.2d 152
    Headnote: Once Legislature has set up standards for guidance of administrative agencies it is not only proper but highly essential, if administrative agencies are to operate effectively, that details and execution be left to the administrator.
    Document Preview: Petition by woman wrestler to annul refusal by State Athletic Commission to grant her a professional wrestling license. The Supreme Court, Erie County, Special Term, Matthew J. Jasen, J., denied Commission's motion to dismiss petition and for change of venue and the Commission appealed. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Goldman, J., held that State Athletic Commission rule against granting of wrestling license to female wrestler was not an unjust and unconstitutional discrimination against women. Reversed and petition dismissed.

    15A ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND PROCEDURE 17,088
        15AI In General 19
            15AKey Number Symbol1008 Validity of Statutes 4
                15AKey Number Symbol1016 Adjudications. 1

    Mass v. Blum
    19. Mass v. Blum
    Supreme Court, Albany County, New York. February 22, 1982 112 Misc.2d 898
    Headnote: Section of Administrative Procedure Act providing that finding of agency as to sufficiency of definiteness or detail of statement or its failure or refusal to furnish more detailed statement shall not be subject to judicial review does not limit due process, since complaint that notice was inadequate may be made at administrative hearing and, if ruling is adverse to petitioner, he may seek judicial review by means of separate proceeding following administrative determination.  McKinney's State Administrative Procedure Act § 301, subd. 2;  U.S.C.A.Const.Amends. 5, 14;  Const.Art. 1, § 6.
    Document Preview: An action was filed challenging the constitutionality of the section of the Administrative Procedure Act providing that the finding of an agency as to the sufficiency of definiteness or detail of the statement or its failure or refusal to furnish a more detailed statement shall not be subject to judicial review.   The Supreme Court, Special Term, Albany County, Con G. Cholakis, J., held that the statute does not violate due process since the very arguments which may have prompted the action could be made at the administrative hearing and, if that ruling is adverse, a separate proceeding may be commenced. Ordered accordingly.

    15A ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND PROCEDURE 17,088
        15AI In General 19
            15AKey Number Symbol1008 Validity of Statutes 4
                15AKey Number Symbol1017 Judicial remedies and review. 1

    Grundman v. Town of Brighton
    20. Grundman v. Town of Brighton
    Supreme Court, Monroe County, New York, Special Term. November 17, 1956 5 Misc.2d 1006
    Headnote: Statute defining sole instances in which a board's administrative action may be reviewed by courts is constitutional.  Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, § 121.
    Document Preview: Proceedings by liquor licensee to enjoin individual defendants and officers of defendant town from enforcing zoning ordinance which prohibited location of places selling alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption within one-half mile of a school and within 1,000 feet of any public playground, hospital, church, synagogue or children's home. The Supreme Court, County of Monroe, Henry, J., held, on motion to strike defenses numbered 'First,' 'Second,' and 'Third' contained in paragraphs numbered '13' to '50' inclusive, of the answer of defendants, that determination of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board in granting licensee's license must be deemed valid in a subsequent collateral attack on its legality and therefore town could not defend proceedings on theory that Alcoholic Beverage Control Board had abused its discretion in awarding liquor license contrary to town ordinance. Order accordingly. See, also, 1 Misc.2d...