determination was made violation in New York

2025"Judicial review of an administrative determination not made after a quasi-judicial hearing is limited to whether the determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law, or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion" ( Matter of Simon Green, Inc. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal , 228 AD3d 670 , 671 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see CPLR 7803[3]; Matter of Halperin v City of New Rochelle , 24 AD3d 768, 770-771 ).

2017Thus, the sole question before this Court is whether the determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law, or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion (see CPLR 7803 [3]; Matter of Gernatt Asphalt Prods. v Town of Sardinia, 87 NY2d 668, 688 [1996]; Matter of Moy v Board of Town Trust *525 ees of Town of Southold, 61 AD3d at 764 ; Matter of Halperin v City of New Rochelle, 24 AD3d 768 [2005]).

2026"A court's authority to examine a SEQRA review conducted by an entity that was required to do so is limited to reviewing whether the determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion" ( Matter of Gernatt Asphalt Prods. v Town of Sardinia , 87 NY2d 668, 688 [1996]; see Chinese Staff & Workers Assn. v City of New York , 68 NY2d 359, 363 [1986]).

2025SEQRA does not set forth specific standards for judicial review, and so review of a lead agency's negative declaration must be guided by standards applicable to administrative [*6]proceedings generally: "whether a determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion" (CPLR 7803[3]; Matter of Gernatt Asphalt Products, Inc. v Town of Sardinia , 87 NY2d 668, 688 [1996]).

2025"Judicial review of an administrative determination not made after a quasi-judicial hearing is limited to whether the determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law, or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion" ( Matter of Lake v New York City Employees' Retirement Sys. , 202 AD3d 682, 683 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see CPLR 7803).

2025"Judicial review of an administrative determination not made after a quasi-judicial hearing is limited to whether the determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law, or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion" ( Matter of Lake v New York City Employees' Retirement Sys. , 202 AD3d 682, 683 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see CPLR 7803).

2026"An action is arbitrary and capricious when it is taken without sound basis in reason or regard to the facts" (<i>Matter of Peckham v Calogero</i>, 12 NY3d 424, 431 ).

2025DISCUSSION Article 78 Standard In a challenge to an administrative determination pursuant to CPLR 7803 (3), judicial review is limited to an inquiry into whether the challenged determination had a rational basis, or whether the action was arbitrary and capricious or affected by an error of law (CPLR 7803 [3] [“The only questions that may be raised in a proceeding under this article are . . . whether a determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion”]; see Matter of Wooley v New York State Dept. o

2025DISCUSSION Article 78 Standard In a challenge to an administrative determination pursuant to CPLR 7803 (3), judicial review is limited to an inquiry into whether the challenged determination had a rational basis, or whether the action was arbitrary and capricious or affected by an error of law (CPLR 7803 [3] [“The only questions that may be raised in a proceeding under this article are . . . whether a determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion”]; see Matter of Wooley v New York State Dept. o

2018A determination is arbitrary and capricious when it is without sound basis and reason and generally taken without regard to the facts ( see Matter of Wooley v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 15 NY3d 275, 280 ; Matter of Pell v Bd. of Educ. of Union Free School Dist.

2026"A court's authority to examine a SEQRA review conducted by an entity that was required to do so is limited to reviewing whether the determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion" ( Matter of Gernatt Asphalt Prods. v Town of Sardinia , 87 NY2d 668, 688 [1996]; see Chinese Staff & Workers Assn. v City of New York , 68 NY2d 359, 363 [1986]).

2025"In reviewing administrative proceedings in general . . . we are limited to considering 'whether a determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion'" ( Chinese Staff and Workers Ass'n v City of New York , 68 NY2d 359, 363 [1986] ( quoting CPLR 7803 [3])).

2015Consequently, we review the determination pursuant to the standard set forth in CPLR 7803 (3) and consider “ ‘only whether the determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law, was arbitrary and capricious, or was an abuse of discretion’” (Matter of Kirkpatrick v Wambua, 117 AD3d 739 , 739-740 [2014], quoting Matter of Halpert v Shah, 107 AD3d 800, 801 [2013]; see CPLR 7803 [3]; Matter of Ward, v City of Long Beach, 20 NY3d 1042, 1043 [2013]).

2015As such, we consider “only whether the determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law, was arbitrary and capricious, or was an abuse of discretion” (Matter of Halpert v Shah, 107 AD3d 800, 801 [2013]; see CPLR 7803 [3]; Matter of Ward v City of Long Beach, 20 NY3d 1042 [2013]; Matter of Halperin v City of New Rochelle, 24 AD3d 768, 770 [2005]).

2026Corp.</i>, 67 NY2d 400, 416 [1986], quoting CPLR 7803 [3]; <i>see</i> <i>Diocese of Rochester v Planning Bd. of Town of Brighton</i>, 1 NY2d 508, 520 [1956]).</p> <p>Despite petitioners' contention that the number and density of loading docks reflected in the project proposal "likely" indicates that the property's actual use will differ from what the Planning Board approved, we perceive no error of law or abuse of discretion in the Planning Board's issuance of the site plan approval and special use permit limiting it to use as a warehouse.

2007Corp., 67 NY2d 400 [1986].) In reviewing whether a determination was made in accordance with SEQRA and its implementing regulations a court is limited to reviewing whether “the determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion.” (Matter of Dunk v City of Watertown, 11 AD3d 1024, 1024 [4th Dept 2004] [internal quotation marks omitted], quoting Matter of Gernatt Asphalt Prods. v Town of Sardinia, 87 NY2d 668, 688 [1996].) In so reviewing, the court may first review the agency procedures to determine

2015“Where, as here, the agency determination under review was not made after a quasi-judicial evidentiary hearing, ‘we review the determination under the standard set forth in CPLR 7803 (3), and consider only whether the determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law, was arbitrary and capricious, or was an abuse of discretion’ ” (Matter of Kirkpatrick v Wambua, 117 AD3d 739 , 739-740 [2014], quoting Matter of Halpert v Shah, 107 AD3d 800, 801 [2013] ).

2015As such, we consider “only whether the determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law, was arbitrary and capricious, or was an abuse of discretion” (Matter of Halpert v Shah, 107 AD3d 800, 801 [2013]; see CPLR 7803 [3]; Matter of Ward v City of Long Beach, 20 NY3d 1042 [2013]; Matter of Halperin v City of New Rochelle, 24 AD3d 768, 770 [2005]).

2026"Judicial review of administrative determinations that were not made after a quasi-judicial hearing is limited to whether the determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law, or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion" ( Matter of Riverside Tenants Assn. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal , 133 AD3d 764, 766 , citing CPLR 7803[3]; see Matter of Murphy v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal , 21 NY3d 649, 652 ; Matter of Sasso v Osgood , 86 NY2d 374, 384 ).

2019Judicial review of an administrative determination that was not made after a quasi-judicial hearing is limited to whether the determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law, or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion ( see CPLR 7803[3]; Matter of Riverside Tenants Assn. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal , 133 AD3d 764, 766 ).

2015Our review of the subject determination of the respondent, the New York City Transit Authority (hereinafter the NYCTA), which concluded that the petitioner was a nonresponsible bidder for the subject contract (see Public Authorities Law § 1209 [1]), is limited to “whether a determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion” (CPLR 7803 [3]; see Matter of DeFoe Corp. v New York City Dept. of Transp., 87 NY2d 754, 760 [1996]; Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist.

2012In an article 78 proceeding, the proper standard of judicial review is “whether a determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion” (CPLR 7803 [3]; Matter of DeFoe Corp. v New York City Dept. of Transp., 87 NY2d 754 [1996]).

2026As relevant here, "[i]n a CPLR article 78 proceeding to review a determination of an administrative agency, the standard of judicial review is whether the determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law, or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion" ( Matter of Concourse Rehabilitation & Nursing Ctr., Inc. v Zucker , 217 AD3d 1189, 1190 [3d Dept 2023] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Evercare Choice, Inc. v Zucker , 218 AD3d 882, 885 [3d Dept 2023]).

2025Petitioners appeal. [FN1] As relevant here, "[i]n a CPLR article 78 proceeding to review a determination of an administrative agency, the standard of judicial review is whether the determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law, or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion" ( Matter of Concourse Rehabilitation & Nursing Ctr., Inc. v Zucker , 217 AD3d 1189, 1190 [3d Dept 2023] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Evercare Choice, Inc. v Zucker , 218 AD3d 882, 885 [3d Dept 2023]).

2026As relevant here, "[i]n a CPLR article 78 proceeding to review a determination of an administrative agency, the standard of judicial review is whether the determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law, or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion" ( Matter of Concourse Rehabilitation & Nursing Ctr., Inc. v Zucker , 217 AD3d 1189, 1190 [3d Dept 2023] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Evercare Choice, Inc. v Zucker , 218 AD3d 882, 885 [3d Dept 2023]).

2025Petitioners appeal. [FN1] As relevant here, "[i]n a CPLR article 78 proceeding to review a determination of an administrative agency, the standard of judicial review is whether the determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law, or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion" ( Matter of Concourse Rehabilitation & Nursing Ctr., Inc. v Zucker , 217 AD3d 1189, 1190 [3d Dept 2023] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Evercare Choice, Inc. v Zucker , 218 AD3d 882, 885 [3d Dept 2023]).

2026"The agency's substantive obligations under SEQRA must be viewed in light of a rule of reason and agencies have considerable latitude in evaluating environmental effects and choosing among alternatives" ( Matter of Eadie v Town Bd. of Town of N. Greenbush , 7 NY3d 306, 318 [2006] [internal quotation marks omitted]). "[W]hile judicial review must be meaningful, the courts may not substitute their judgment for that of the agency for it is not their role to weigh the desirability of any action or [to] choose among alternatives" ( Matter of Riverkeeper, Inc. v Planning Bd. of Town of Southeast , 9

2012The relevant question before the court is whether the agency identified the relevant areas of environmental concern, took a hard look at them, and made a reasoned elaboration of the basis for its determination” (Matter of Gernatt Asphalt Prods. v Town of Sardinia, 87 NY2d 668, 688 [1996] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Riverkeeper, Inc. v Planning Bd. of Town of Southeast, 9 NY3d 219, 231-232 [2007]; Matter of Jackson v New York State Urban Dev.

2025In a CPLR article 78 proceeding to review a determination of the DHCR, judicial review is limited to the question of whether the determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law, or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion ( see id. § 7803[3]; Matter of PACST 1244-46, 1356, LLC v State of New York Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal , 219 AD3d 838, 839; Matter of Sha Realty, LLC v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal , 193 AD3d 864, 865).

2025"Judicial review of an administrative determination is generally limited to whether the determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law, or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion" ( Matter of Fairley v State of New York Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal , 214 AD3d 800, 801 ; see CPLR 7803[3]; Matter of Sha Realty, LLC v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal , 193 AD3d 864, 865 ).

2025"Judicial review of an administrative determination is generally limited to whether the determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law, or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion" ( Matter of CHT Place, LLC v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal , 219 AD3d 486, 487 ; see CPLR 7803[3]).

2025"Judicial review of an administrative determination is generally limited to whether the determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law, or was [*2]arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion" ( Matter of CHT Place, LLC v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal , 219 AD3d 486, 487 ).

2004The record clearly shows that the Planning Board identified the relevant areas of environmental concern, took a hard look at them, and made a reasoned elaboration of the basis of its determination (see e.g., Matter of Save the Pine Bush v Planning Bd. of City of Albany, 298 AD2d 806, 807 [3d Dept 2002] [“Judicial analysis of an agency’s SEQRA determination is ‘limited to reviewing whether the determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion’ ”], quot ing Matter of Gernatt Asphalt Prods. v Town of

2004The record clearly shows that the Planning Board identified the relevant areas of environmental concern, took a hard look at them, and made a reasoned elaboration of the basis of its determination ( see e.g., Matter of Save the Pine Bush v Planning Bd. of City of Albany , 298 AD2d 806, 807 [3d Dept 2002] ["Judicial analysis of an agency's SEQRA determination is 'limited to reviewing whether the determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion' "], quoting{** 4 Misc 3d at 653 } Matter of Gernatt As

2022Preserv. & Dev. , 145 AD3d 905, 907 [2d Dept 2016] [citations omitted]; see CPLR 7803 [3]).

2021Preserv. & Dev. , 145 AD3d 905, 907 ; see CPLR 7803[3]).

2004School Dist. v Commissioner of Educ. , 91 NY2d 133 [1997]).

2004School Dist. v Commissioner of Educ. , 91 NY2d 133, 139 [1997]).

2004The standard to be applied to an agency's SEQRA determination has been stated as follows: "It is well settled that judicial review of the SEQRA process is limited to whether "'a determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion' * * * [I]t is not the role of the courts to weigh the desirability of any action or choose among alternatives, but to assure that the agency itself has satisfied SEQRA, procedurally and substantively" ... '[n]othing in the law requires an agency to reach a particular result

2004The standard to be applied to an agency's SEQRA determination has been stated as follows: "It is well settled that judicial review of the SEQRA process is limited to whether ' "a determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion" . . . [I]t is not the role of the courts to weigh the desirability of any action or choose among alternatives, but to assure that the agency itself has satisfied SEQRA, procedurally and substantively'. . . '[n]othing in the law requires an agency to reach a particular resu

2026"Judicial review of administrative determinations that were not made after a quasi-judicial hearing is limited to whether the determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law, or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion" ( Matter of Riverside Tenants Assn. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal , 133 AD3d 764, 766 , citing CPLR 7803[3]; see Matter of Murphy v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal , 21 NY3d 649, 652 ; Matter of Sasso v Osgood , 86 NY2d 374, 384 ).

2016“Judicial review of administrative determinations that were not made after a quasi-judicial hearing is limited to whether the determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law, or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion” (Matter of Riverside Tenants Assn. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 133 AD3d 764, 766 [2015], citing CPLR 7803 [3]; see Matter of Murphy v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 21 NY3d 649, 652 [2013]; Matter of Sasso v Osgood, 86 NY2d 374, 384 [1995]; Matter of Halperin v City of New Rochelle

2019Corp. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal , 122 AD3d 739, 739 ).

2017Corp. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 122 AD3d 739, 739 [2014]).

2021Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal , 136 AD3d 925, 925 ).

2019Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal , 136 AD3d 925, 925 ; Matter of Riverside Tenants Assn. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal , 133 AD3d 764, 766 ).

2026"In a CPLR article 78 proceeding to review a determination of the DHCR, judicial review is limited to the question of whether the determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law, or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion" ( Matter of PACST 1244-46, 1356, LLC v State of New York Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal , 219 AD3d 838, 839 ; see CPLR 7803[3]).

2026"In a CPLR article 78 proceeding to review a determination of the DHCR, judicial review is limited to the question of whether the determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law, or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion" [*2] ( Matter of PACST 1244-46, 1356, LLC v State of New York Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal , 219 AD3d 838, 839 ; see CPLR 7803[3]; Matter of Smolarczyk v Towns , 166 AD3d 786 , 788).