quasi-judicial evidentiary hearing in New York

2020However, the Planning Board's determination was made after informational public hearings, as opposed to a quasi-judicial evidentiary hearing, and therefore, the substantial evidence standard of review does not apply ( see Matter of Zupa v Board of Trustees of Town of Southold , 54 AD3d 957 ; Matter of Halperin v City of New Rochelle , 24 AD3d 768 ).

2019"Judicial review of the Commission's determination, which was made after a public hearing, as opposed to a quasi-judicial evidentiary hearing, is limited to whether the determination was affected by an error of law, or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion, or was irrational" ( Matter of Tuccio v Central Pine Barrens Joint Planning & Policy Commn. , 67 AD3d 689, 692 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see CPLR 7803[3]; Matter of Zupa v Board of Trustees of Town of Southold , 54 AD3d 957, 958 ; Matter of Halperin v City of New Rochelle , 24 AD3d 768, 770 ; see generally ECL 57-

2014Where, 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 Halpert v Shah, 107 AD3d 800, 801 [2013]; see Ward v City of Long Beach, 20 NY3d 1042 [2013]).

2014Where, 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 Halpert v Shah, 107 AD3d 800, 801 [2013]; see Ward v City of Long Beach, 20 NY3d 1042 [2013]).

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] ).

2014Where, 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 Halpert v Shah, 107 AD3d 800, 801 [2013]; see Ward v City of Long Beach, 20 NY3d 1042 [2013]).

2024"Judicial review of the [Board]'s determination, which was made after a public hearing, as opposed to a quasi-judicial evidentiary hearing, is limited to whether the determination was affected by an error of law, or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion, or was irrational" ( Matter of Armand Gustave, LLC v Pavacic , 173 AD3d 1170 , 1171 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see CPLR 7803[3]; Matter of Zupa v Board of Trustees of Town of Southold , 54 AD3d 957, 957 ).

2020However, the Planning Board's determination was made after informational public hearings, as opposed to a quasi-judicial evidentiary hearing, and therefore, the substantial evidence standard of review does not apply ( see Matter of Zupa v Board of Trustees of Town of Southold , 54 AD3d 957 ; Matter of Halperin v City of New Rochelle , 24 AD3d 768 ).

2019"Judicial review of the Commission's determination, which was made after a public hearing, as opposed to a quasi-judicial evidentiary hearing, is limited to whether the determination was affected by an error of law, or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion, or was irrational" ( Matter of Tuccio v Central Pine Barrens Joint Planning & Policy Commn. , 67 AD3d 689, 692 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see CPLR 7803[3]; Matter of Zupa v Board of Trustees of Town of Southold , 54 AD3d 957, 958 ; Matter of Halperin v City of New Rochelle , 24 AD3d 768, 770 ; see generally ECL 57-

2014As such, judicial review of the determination was limited to “whether the determination was affected by an error of law, or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion, or was irrational” (Matter of Tuccio v Central Pine Barrens Joint Planning & Policy Commn., 67 AD3d 689, 692 [2009] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see New York City Health & Hosps.

2018"Municipal land use agencies like [a] [z]oning [b]oard are quasi-legislative, quasi-administrative bodies, and the public hearings they conduct are informational in nature and do not involve the receipt of sworn testimony or taking of evidence within the meaning of CPLR 7803 (4)" ( id. at 770 [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted]; see Matter of Sasso v Osgood , 86 NY2d 374 , 384 n 2 [1995]; Matter of TAC Peek Equities, Ltd. v Town of Putnam Val.

2016Since the administrative determination was made after an issues conference, as opposed to a quasi-judicial evidentiary hearing, the question before the court was not whether the determination was supported by substantial evidence but whether the “determination was made in violation of lawful *1085 procedure, was affected by an error of law or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion” (CPLR 7803 [3]; see Matter of Sasso v Osgood, 86 NY2d 374, 385 [1995]; Matter of Ball v New York State Dept. of Envtl.

2017Conservation, 35 AD3d 732, 733 [2006]).

2016Conservation, 35 AD3d 732, 733 [2006]).

2024"An action is arbitrary and capricious when it is taken without sound basis in reason or regard to the facts" ( Matter of Peckham v Calogero , 12 NY3d 424, 431 ).

2019"An action is arbitrary and capricious when it is taken without sound basis in reason or regard to the facts" ( Matter of Peckham v Calogero , 12 NY3d 424, 431 ).

2025The "substantial evidence standard is a minimal standard" ( Matter of Haug v State Univ. of N.Y. at Potsdam , 32 NY3d 1044, 1045 [internal quotation marks omitted]). "[R]ationality is what is reviewed under . . . the substantial evidence rule; substantial evidence is such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact" ( id. at 1046 [citation and internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Rosario v Municipal Hous.

2025The "substantial evidence standard is a minimal standard" ( Matter of Haug v State Univ. of N.Y. at Potsdam , 32 NY3d 1044, 1045 [internal quotation marks omitted]). "[R]ationality is what is reviewed under . . . the substantial evidence rule; substantial evidence is such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact" ( id. at 1046 [citation and internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Rosario v Municipal Hous.

2022Corp. , 15 NY3d 235, 260 [2010], cert denied 562 US 1108 [2010]).

2020With respect to this proceeding, contrary to the parties' contentions, "the substantial evidence standard of review does not apply to the administrative decision at issue, since it was made after [an] informational public hearing[], as opposed to a quasi-judicial evidentiary hearing" ( Matter of Yilmaz v Foley , 63 AD3d 955, 956 [2d Dept 2009]; see generally Matter of Lake St.

2017Since the administrative determination at issue was made after informational public hearings, as opposed to a quasi-judicial evidentiary hearing, the “arbitrary and capricious” standard of CPLR 7803 (3) applies (see Matter of Moy v Board of Town Trustees of Town of Southold, 61 AD3d 763, 764 [2009]; Matter of Zupa v Board of Trustees of Town of Southold, 54 AD3d 957, 957 [2008]).

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]).

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]).

2017Since the administrative determination in this case was made after a grievance meeting, as opposed to a quasi-judicial evidentiary hearing, the court properly concluded that the relevant standard of review was 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” (CPLR 7803 [3]; see Matter of Raritan Baykeeper, Inc. v Martens, 142 AD3d 1083, 1084-1085 [2016]; Matter of Ball v New York State Dept. of Envtl.

2016Williston v Board of Trustees of Inc. Vil. of Williston Park, 119 AD3d 679, 680 [2014]; Matter of Harris v City of Mount Vernon, 99 AD3d 905, 905-906 [2012]).

2016Williston v Board of Trustees of Inc. Vil. of Williston Park, 119 AD3d 679, 680 [2014]; Matter of Harris v City of Mount Vernon, 99 AD3d 905, 905-906 [2012]).

2016The Supreme Court erred in transferring the proceeding to this Court, since the challenged determination was not made after a quasi-judicial evidentiary hearing (see CPLR 7803 [4]; Matter of Auffredou v Board of Trustees of Vil. of Cornwall-on-Hudson, 123 AD3d 922, 922 [2014]; Matter of Board of Trustees of Inc. Vil. of E.