exhaustion doctrine in New York

2026Commn ., 66 AD3d 441 , 446-447 [1st Dept 2009]), in light of the circumstances and recognizing that the exhaustion doctrine is not inflexible ( see Watergate II Apts. , 46 NY2d at 56 ), we conclude that petitioners' failure to seek additional administrative review by the CSC does not warrant dismissal of this CPLR article 78 proceeding ( see Matter of Obas v Kiley , 149 AD2d 422, 423 [2d Dept 1989]; cf. Matter of Urciuoli v Department of Citywide Admin.

2026Commn ., 66 AD3d 441, 446-447 [1st Dept 2009]), in light of the circumstances and recognizing that the exhaustion doctrine is not inflexible ( see Watergate II Apts. , 46 NY2d at 56), we conclude that petitioners' failure to seek additional administrative review by the CSC does not warrant dismissal of this CPLR article 78 proceeding ( see Matter of Obas v Kiley , 149 AD2d 422, 423 [2d Dept 1989]; cf. Matter of Urciuoli v Department of Citywide Admin.

2014However, there are exceptions to the exhaustion doctrine, including where “resort to an administrative remedy would be futile or when its pursuit would cause irreparable injury” or where “an agency’s action is challenged as either unconstitutional or wholly beyond its grant of power” CWatergate II Apts, v Buffalo Sewer Auth., 46 NY2d at 57 ; see Matter of Connerton v Ryan, 86 AD3d at 699 ; cf. Matter of Sabino v DiNapoli, 90 AD3d 1392, 1393 [2011]).

2014However, there are exceptions to the exhaustion doctrine, including where “resort to an administrative remedy would be futile or when its pursuit would cause irreparable injury” or where “an agency’s action is challenged as either unconstitutional or wholly beyond its grant of power” CWatergate II Apts, v Buffalo Sewer Auth., 46 NY2d at 57 ; see Matter of Connerton v Ryan, 86 AD3d at 699 ; cf. Matter of Sabino v DiNapoli, 90 AD3d 1392, 1393 [2011]).

2011(See CPLR 7801; Watergate II Apts. v Buffalo Sewer Auth., 46 NY2d 52, 57 [1978]; Young Men’s Christian Assn. v Rochester Pure Waters Dist., 37 NY2d 371, 375 [1975].) However, the exhaustion rule is “subject to important qualifications,” and is not applicable, for example, when “an agency’s action is challenged as either unconstitutional or wholly beyond its grant of power, or when resort to an administrative remedy would be futile or when its pursuit would cause irreparable injury.” (Watergate II Apts., 46 NY2d at 57 [citations omitted].) Nor is exhaustion required where “only an issue of law

1995However, there is "an exception to the exhaustion doctrine where one has raised claims that an agency’s action was unconstitutional or wholly beyond its grant of power” (DGM Partners-Rye v Board of Architectural Review, 176 AD2d 875, 876 [2d Dept 1991]; see, Watergate II Apts. v Buffalo Sewer Auth., supra; see also, Young Men’s Christian Assn. v Rochester Pure Waters Dist., supra).

2024In his answer, respondent submitted evidence that petitioner failed to appeal to CORC, which petitioner does not dispute ( see generally Matter of Beaubrun v Annucci , 144 AD3d 1309, 1310-1311 [3d Dept 2016]; Matter of Alvarez v Fischer , 94 AD3d 1404, 1407 [4th Dept 2012]). [*2]Petitioner thus failed to exhaust his administrative remedies ( see Jackson , 139 AD3d at 1192 ; Alvarez , 94 AD3d at 1407 ; see also Matter of Reyes v Annucci , 142 AD3d 1395, 1396 [4th Dept 2016]), and he did not establish that any exceptions to the exhaustion requirement applied ( see Bennefield , 122 AD3d at 1331 )

2019Petitioner has not demonstrated, and we do not discern, that any exception to the exhaustion requirement is applicable, as "his mere assertion that a constitutional right is involved will not excuse his failure to pursue established administrative procedures that can provide adequate relief" ( Matter of Beaubrun v Annucci , 144 AD3d 1309, 1311 [2016] [internal quotation marks, [*2]brackets and citation omitted]; see Matter of Golston v Director of Div. of Nutritional Servs. , 168 AD3d at 1301).

2014Petitioner has failed “to establish that any of the exceptions to the exhaustion doctrine applied” (id. at 926; see Matter of Abdullah v Girdich, 297 AD2d 844, 845 [2002]), and this Court lacks the discretionary authority to address his contentions (see Matter of Allen v Goord, 4 AD3d 635, 636-637 [2004]; see generally Matter of Nelson v Coughlin, 188 AD2d 1071 , 1071 [1992], appeal dismissed 81 NY2d 834 [1993]).

2014Petitioner has failed “to establish that any of the exceptions to the exhaustion doctrine applied” (id. at 926; see Matter of Abdullah v Girdich, 297 AD2d 844, 845 [2002]), and this Court lacks the discretionary authority to address his contentions (see Matter of Allen v Goord, 4 AD3d 635, 636-637 [2004]; see generally Matter of Nelson v Coughlin, 188 AD2d 1071 , 1071 [1992], appeal dismissed 81 NY2d 834 [1993]).

2014The narrow exceptions to the exhaustion rule (see Matter of Connerton v Ryan, 86 AD3d at 699 ; Matter of Cullen v New York State Div. of Tax Appeals, 30 AD3d 850, 851 [2006]) include, as relevant here, circumstances in which an administrative challenge would be futile or where the issue to be determined is purely a question of law (see Watergate II Apts. v Buffalo Sewer Auth., 46 NY2d at 57 ; Matter of Cady v Clark, 176 AD2d 1055, 1056 [1991]).

2014The narrow exceptions to the exhaustion rule (see Matter of Connerton v Ryan, 86 AD3d at 699 ; Matter of Cullen v New York State Div. of Tax Appeals, 30 AD3d 850, 851 [2006]) include, as relevant here, circumstances in which an administrative challenge would be futile or where the issue to be determined is purely a question of law (see Watergate II Apts. v Buffalo Sewer Auth., 46 NY2d at 57 ; Matter of Cady v Clark, 176 AD2d 1055, 1056 [1991]).

2012One exception to the exhaustion doctrine is where the agency’s action would cause irreparable injury (see Town of Oyster Bay v Kirkland, 81 AD3d at 815 ).

2012One exception to the exhaustion doctrine is where the agency’s action would cause irreparable injury (see Town of Oyster Bay v Kirkland, 81 AD3d at 815 ).

2023Contrary to respondent's argument, petitioner exhausted its administrative remedies, since petitioner undisputedly filed a timely administrative appeal from respondent's initial denial of petitioner's FOIL request ( see Matter of Ward v Bennett , 79 NY2d 394, 400 [1992]; cf. Matter of Jamison v Tesler , 300 AD2d 194 [1st Dept 2002] [the petitioner failed to meet the exhaustion requirement by failing to bring any administrative appeal]).

2023Contrary to respondent's argument, petitioner exhausted its administrative remedies, since petitioner undisputedly filed a timely administrative appeal from respondent's initial denial of petitioner's FOIL request ( see Matter of Ward v Bennett , 79 NY2d 394, 400 [1992]; cf. Matter of Jamison v Tesler , 300 AD2d 194 [1st Dept 2002] [the petitioner failed to meet the exhaustion requirement by failing to bring any administrative appeal]).

2019As petitioner has failed to allege — and we are unable to discern — an exception to the exhaustion doctrine, Supreme Court properly granted respondents' motion to dismiss the petition ( see Matter of Green v Kirkpatrick , 2018 NY Slip Op 08406 at *2 ; Matter of Georgiou v Daniel , 21 AD3d 1230, 1231 [2005]) [FN1] .

2018Under these circumstances, we agree that petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies ( see Matter of Beaubrun v Annucci , 144 AD3d 1309, 1310-1311 [2016]) and, further, find that no exception to the exhaustion requirement applies ( see Matter of Georgiou v Daniel , 21 AD3d 1230, 1231 [2005]).

2014Petitioner has failed “to establish that any of the exceptions to the exhaustion doctrine applied” (id. at 926; see Matter of Abdullah v Girdich, 297 AD2d 844, 845 [2002]), and this Court lacks the discretionary authority to address his contentions (see Matter of Allen v Goord, 4 AD3d 635, 636-637 [2004]; see generally Matter of Nelson v Coughlin, 188 AD2d 1071 , 1071 [1992], appeal dismissed 81 NY2d 834 [1993]).

2014Petitioner has failed “to establish that any of the exceptions to the exhaustion doctrine applied” (id. at 926; see Matter of Abdullah v Girdich, 297 AD2d 844, 845 [2002]), and this Court lacks the discretionary authority to address his contentions (see Matter of Allen v Goord, 4 AD3d 635, 636-637 [2004]; see generally Matter of Nelson v Coughlin, 188 AD2d 1071 , 1071 [1992], appeal dismissed 81 NY2d 834 [1993]).

2014Petitioner has failed “to establish that any of the exceptions to the exhaustion doctrine applied” (id. at 926; see Matter of Abdullah v Girdich, 297 AD2d 844, 845 [2002]), and this Court lacks the discretionary authority to address his contentions (see Matter of Allen v Goord, 4 AD3d 635, 636-637 [2004]; see generally Matter of Nelson v Coughlin, 188 AD2d 1071 , 1071 [1992], appeal dismissed 81 NY2d 834 [1993]).

2014Petitioner has failed “to establish that any of the exceptions to the exhaustion doctrine applied” (id. at 926; see Matter of Abdullah v Girdich, 297 AD2d 844, 845 [2002]), and this Court lacks the discretionary authority to address his contentions (see Matter of Allen v Goord, 4 AD3d 635, 636-637 [2004]; see generally Matter of Nelson v Coughlin, 188 AD2d 1071 , 1071 [1992], appeal dismissed 81 NY2d 834 [1993]).

2014Petitioner has failed “to establish that any of the exceptions to the exhaustion doctrine applied” (id. at 926; see Matter of Abdullah v Girdich, 297 AD2d 844, 845 [2002]), and this Court lacks the discretionary authority to address his contentions (see Matter of Allen v Goord, 4 AD3d 635, 636-637 [2004]; see generally Matter of Nelson v Coughlin, 188 AD2d 1071 , 1071 [1992], appeal dismissed 81 NY2d 834 [1993]).

2014Petitioner has failed “to establish that any of the exceptions to the exhaustion doctrine applied” (id. at 926; see Matter of Abdullah v Girdich, 297 AD2d 844, 845 [2002]), and this Court lacks the discretionary authority to address his contentions (see Matter of Allen v Goord, 4 AD3d 635, 636-637 [2004]; see generally Matter of Nelson v Coughlin, 188 AD2d 1071 , 1071 [1992], appeal dismissed 81 NY2d 834 [1993]).

2011Nevertheless, there are exceptions to the exhaustion rule, which include situations in which resort to administrative remedies would be futile (see Bankers Trust Corp. v New York City Dept. of Fin., 1 NY3d 315, 322 [2003]; Watergate II Apts. v Buffalo Sewer Auth., 46 NY2d at 57 ).

2011Admin., 36 NY2d 87, 92-93 [1975] [unconstitutional tax levy]; Matter of Huntington Yacht Club v Incorporated Vil. of Huntington Bay, 272 AD2d 327, 328 [2000] [lack of jurisdiction]), the court has the discretion to rely on this exception to the exhaustion requirement (see Bankers Trust Corp. v New York City Dept. of Fin., 1 NY3d 315, 322 [2003]).

2018Moreover, petitioner has not demonstrated that any of the exceptions to the exhaustion requirement are applicable ( see generally Matter of Beaubrun v Annucci , 144 AD3d 1309, 1311 [2016]; Matter of Hyatt v Annucci , 134 AD3d 1359, 1359-1360 [2015]).

2016Moreover, petitioner failed to establish that any of the exceptions to the exhaustion requirement are applicable, as his “mere assertion that a constitutional right is involved will not excuse [his] failure to pursue established administrative procedures that can provide adequate relief” (Matter of Hyatt v Annucci, 134 AD3d 1359, 1359-1360 [2015] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Santiago v Boll, 130 AD3d at 1336 ).

1996If the Building Inspector had the authority to make a final decision revoking defendants’ permit, requiring defendants to seek administrative review of his action by taking an appeal to the Zoning Board would impose an exhaustion requirement on their section 1983 action, a condition which is generally impermissible (see, Patsy v Florida Bd. of Regents, 457 US 496 ; Williamson, supra, at 194, n 13 ; see generally, Stein, Regulatory Takings and Ripeness in the Federal Courts, op. cit, at 15; 1 Schwartz and Kirklin, Section 1983 Litigation: Claims, Defenses, and Fees § 3.13, at 204-205 [2d ed]).

1994Ripeness is distinct from the exhaustion requirement (Williamson Planning Commn. v Hamilton Bank, 473 US 172, 192 ).

2021Bd. , 36 AD3d 544, 549 [1st Dept 2007]; see Matter of Haddad v City of Albany , 149 AD3d 1361, 1364 [3d Dept 2017]).

2019Bd., 36 AD3d 544, 548-549 [1st Dept 2007]).

2018Plaintiff admittedly failed to exhaust its administrative remedies, and does not fall within the exception to the exhaustion doctrine for constitutional challenges ( see Matter of Schulz v State of New York , 86 NY2d 225, 232 [1995], cert denied 516 US 944 [1995]).

2011Although the exhaustion requirement may be excused when, for example,' a party asserts a constitutional challenge to an agency’s action or “when resort to an administrative remedy would be futile” (Watergate II Apts. v Buffalo Sewer Auth., 46 NY2d at 57 ; see Matter of Connerton v Ryan, 86 AD3d 698, 699 [2011]), “the mere assertion that a constitutional right is involved will not excuse the failure to pursue established administrative procedures that can provide adequate relief” (Matter of Pfaff v Columbia-Greene Community Coll., 99 AD2d 887, 888 [1984]; see Matter of Schulz v State of New Yor

2016His contention that he will suffer irreparable injury in the absence of judicial intervention does not justify exempting him from the exhaustion requirement, since “[tjhere is no legally cognizable injury to be suffered solely from being subjected to the disciplinary hearing [s] with the possibility of a subsequent finding of professional misconduct” (Galin v Chassin, 217 AD2d 446, 447 [1st Dept 1995]).

2016His contention that he will suffer irreparable injury in the absence of judicial intervention does not justify exempting him from the exhaustion requirement, since “[tjhere is no legally cognizable injury to be suffered solely from being subjected to the disciplinary hearing [s] with the possibility of a subsequent finding of professional misconduct” (Galin v Chassin, 217 AD2d 446, 447 [1st Dept 1995]).

2025Nevertheless, in this hybrid proceeding and action, alleging, among other things, that NYCDOE's denial of the request for a medical exemption from the mandatory school vaccination requirements pursuant to Public Health Law § 2164 was arbitrary and capricious and affected by an error of law, the petitioner is not entitled to relief pursuant to CPLR article 78 because he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies or to establish that an exception to the exhaustion doctrine was applicable ( see CPLR 7801[1]; 7803 [3]; Matter of World Motors, Inc. v Dugan , 226 AD3d 1037, 1038; Matter of Dozier

2025Nevertheless, in this hybrid proceeding and action, alleging, among other things, that NYCDOE's denial of the request for a medical exemption from the mandatory school vaccination requirements pursuant to Public Health Law § 2164 was arbitrary and capricious and affected by an error of law, the petitioner is not entitled to relief pursuant to CPLR article 78 because he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies or to establish that an exception to the exhaustion doctrine was applicable ( see CPLR 7801[1]; 7803 [3]; Matter of World Motors, Inc. v Dugan , 226 AD3d 1037, 1038; Matter of Dozier

2011Although the exhaustion requirement may be excused when, for example,' a party asserts a constitutional challenge to an agency’s action or “when resort to an administrative remedy would be futile” (Watergate II Apts. v Buffalo Sewer Auth., 46 NY2d at 57 ; see Matter of Connerton v Ryan, 86 AD3d 698, 699 [2011]), “the mere assertion that a constitutional right is involved will not excuse the failure to pursue established administrative procedures that can provide adequate relief” (Matter of Pfaff v Columbia-Greene Community Coll., 99 AD2d 887, 888 [1984]; see Matter of Schulz v State of New Yor

1992The mere assertion that a constitutional right is involved will not excuse the failure to pursue established administrative remedies that can provide the requested relief, as medical arbitration could here (see, Matter of Levine v Board of Educ., 173 AD2d 619, 620-621 ; Matter of Dozier v New York City, 130 AD2d 128, 134-135 ; Matter of Pfaff v Columbia-Greene Community Coll., 99 AD2d 887 ).

2022Petitioner's attempt to circumvent the exhaustion requirement by casting his claim as a constitutional challenge and asserting that resort to administrative relief would be futile is unpersuasive ( see Matter of Hakeem v Wong , 223 AD2d 765, 765-766 [3d Dept 1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 802 [1996]).

1999Clearly administrative relief was available to petitioner through the Inmate Grievance Program (see, Matter of Hakeem v Wong, 223 AD2d 765 , lv denied 88 NY2d 802 ) and none of the exceptions to the exhaustion doctrine are applicable.

2024Therefore, inasmuch as this is purely a matter of interpretation of the plain language of the statute, without any substantive factual dispute involved, the exhaustion rule does not apply and plaintiffs' claim for a declaratory judgment should not have been dismissed ( see id . at 327-328; see also Matter of Herberg v Perales , 180 AD2d 166 [1st Dept 1992]).

2007Here, there was an adequate basis for an exception (see Matter of Herberg v Perales, 180 AD2d 166 [1992]) on the basis of findings that respondent Department of Health disregarded its own rules in failing to notify petitioner of the termination of the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit’s investigation (despite petitioner’s efforts to discover the status of the matter) until after the CFLR article 78 proceeding was commenced, and the knowledge that petitioner would suffer irreparable harm if operating funds were not released.

2024In his answer, respondent submitted evidence that petitioner failed to appeal to CORC, which petitioner does not dispute ( see generally Matter of Beaubrun v Annucci , 144 AD3d 1309, 1310-1311 [3d Dept 2016]; Matter of Alvarez v Fischer , 94 AD3d 1404, 1407 [4th Dept 2012]). [*2]Petitioner thus failed to exhaust his administrative remedies ( see Jackson , 139 AD3d at 1192 ; Alvarez , 94 AD3d at 1407 ; see also Matter of Reyes v Annucci , 142 AD3d 1395, 1396 [4th Dept 2016]), and he did not establish that any exceptions to the exhaustion requirement applied ( see Bennefield , 122 AD3d at 1331 )

2015Notwithstanding petitioner’s contention to the contrary, he “has failed ‘to establish that any of the exceptions to the exhaustion doctrine applied’ ” (Matter of Bennefield v Annucci, 122 AD3d 1329 , 1331 [2014], quoting Matter of Ross v Ricks, 268 AD2d 925, 926 [2000]).

2018Plaintiff admittedly failed to exhaust its administrative remedies, and does not fall within the exception to the exhaustion doctrine for constitutional challenges ( see Matter of Schulz v State of New York , 86 NY2d 225, 232 [1995], cert denied 516 US 944 [1995]).

2011Although the exhaustion requirement may be excused when, for example,' a party asserts a constitutional challenge to an agency’s action or “when resort to an administrative remedy would be futile” (Watergate II Apts. v Buffalo Sewer Auth., 46 NY2d at 57 ; see Matter of Connerton v Ryan, 86 AD3d 698, 699 [2011]), “the mere assertion that a constitutional right is involved will not excuse the failure to pursue established administrative procedures that can provide adequate relief” (Matter of Pfaff v Columbia-Greene Community Coll., 99 AD2d 887, 888 [1984]; see Matter of Schulz v State of New Yor