determination after hearing in New York

2026Consistent with the ALJ's determination after the hearing, we conclude that, although petitioner met her initial burden with respect to her retaliation claim, there is substantial evidence in the record to support the determination that respondent County of Erie presented legitimate, independent, and nondiscriminatory reasons to support its refusal to promote petitioner ( see id. ).

2011This Court’s power to review a determination after a hearing is as broad as that of the hearing court, bearing in mind that due regard must be given to the decision of the hearing court, who was in a position to assess the credibility of the witnesses (see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; American Home Mtge. v Villaflor, 80 AD3d 637 [2011]).

2002In a judgment dated March 19, 2001, this Court confirmed the determination (see Matter of Aurecchione v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 281 AD2d 543 ).

2000The plaintiff failed to establish, inter alia, the necessity for, the nature and extent of, and the reasonable value of the legal services rendered by its attorney (see, Chase Manhattan Bank v Bekerus, 276 AD2d 461 ; Centre Great Neck Co. v Penn Encore, 255 AD2d 543 ; Granada Condominium I v Morris, 225 AD2d 520 ; Matter of McGovern v Koch, 211 AD2d 682 ; Sand v Lammers, 150 AD2d 355 ).

2000The plaintiff failed to establish, inter alia, the necessity for, the nature and extent of, and the reasonable value of the legal services rendered by its attorney (see, Chase Manhattan Bank v Bekerus, 276 AD2d 461 ; Centre Great Neck Co. v Penn Encore, 255 AD2d 543 ; Granada Condominium I v Morris, 225 AD2d 520 ; Matter of McGovern v Koch, 211 AD2d 682 ; Sand v Lammers, 150 AD2d 355 ).

2000The plaintiff failed to establish, inter alia, the necessity for, the nature and extent of, and the reasonable value of the legal services rendered by its attorney (see, Chase Manhattan Bank v Bekerus, 276 AD2d 461 ; Centre Great Neck Co. v Penn Encore, 255 AD2d 543 ; Granada Condominium I v Morris, 225 AD2d 520 ; Matter of McGovern v Koch, 211 AD2d 682 ; Sand v Lammers, 150 AD2d 355 ).

2000The plaintiff failed to establish, inter alia, the necessity for, the nature and extent of, and the reasonable value of the legal services rendered by its attorney (see, Chase Manhattan Bank v Bekerus, 276 AD2d 461 ; Centre Great Neck Co. v Penn Encore, 255 AD2d 543 ; Granada Condominium I v Morris, 225 AD2d 520 ; Matter of McGovern v Koch, 211 AD2d 682 ; Sand v Lammers, 150 AD2d 355 ).

2000The plaintiff failed to establish, inter alia, the necessity for, the nature and extent of, and the reasonable value of the legal services rendered by its attorney (see, Chase Manhattan Bank v Bekerus, 276 AD2d 461 ; Centre Great Neck Co. v Penn Encore, 255 AD2d 543 ; Granada Condominium I v Morris, 225 AD2d 520 ; Matter of McGovern v Koch, 211 AD2d 682 ; Sand v Lammers, 150 AD2d 355 ).

1992If a petitioner properly raises a question of whether a determination after a hearing is supported by substantial evidence, the proceeding is to be transferred to the Appellate Division (see, CPLR 7804 [g]). * We note that the instant petition did not raise a substantial evidence question and the matter was thus improperly transferred to the Appellate Division (see, Matter of Catalano v Blum, 90 AD2d 669 ).

1992We elect, however, for judicial economy, to retain jurisdiction and determine the issues raised on the merits (see, Thurman v Holahan, 123 AD2d 687 ).

1990This being the case, our review is limited to whether the respondent’s determination was supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Fuhst v Foley, 45 NY2d 441 ; Human Dev.

1989Off. of Mental Retardation & Developmental Disabilities, 119 AD2d 582 [2d Dept 1986].) They may seek review of the Commissioner’s determination after a hearing has been held.

1989(Matter of Talisman Dr. Civic Assn. v Webb, 138 AD2d 610 [2d Dept 1988].) There are other reasons petitioner cannot prevail insofar as it seeks to prohibit the Center or the State from acting.

1983(Matter of Collins v Codd, 38 NY2d 269 ; Matter of Stork Rest. v Boland, 282 NY 256, 267 .) Central to all these principles is the caveat “that a court may not substitute its judgment for that of the board or body it reviews unless the decision under review is arbitrary and unreasonable and constitutes an abuse of discretion.” (Matter of Diocese of Rochester v Planning Bd. of Town of Brighton, 1 NY2d 508, 520 .) But while the scope of article 78 review is narrow, courts are not required to render blind obeisance to an administrator’s determination after a hearing, lest they abdicate their judi

1983Therefore, under these circumstances the matter is remitted for a hearing to determine the voluntariness of defendant’s statements (People v Huntley, 15 NY2d 72 ) and the appeal is held in abeyance pending a determination after the hearing.

1983(Matter of Collins v Codd, 38 NY2d 269 ; Matter of Stork Rest. v Boland, 282 NY 256, 267 .) Central to all these principles is the caveat “that a court may not substitute its judgment for that of the board or body it reviews unless the decision under review is arbitrary and unreasonable and constitutes an abuse of discretion.” (Matter of Diocese of Rochester v Planning Bd. of Town of Brighton, 1 NY2d 508, 520 .) But while the scope of article 78 review is narrow, courts are not required to render blind obeisance to an administrator’s determination after a hearing, lest they abdicate their judi

1983(Matter of Collins v Codd, 38 NY2d 269 ; Matter of Stork Rest. v Boland, 282 NY 256, 267 .) Central to all these principles is the caveat “that a court may not substitute its judgment for that of the board or body it reviews unless the decision under review is arbitrary and unreasonable and constitutes an abuse of discretion.” (Matter of Diocese of Rochester v Planning Bd. of Town of Brighton, 1 NY2d 508, 520 .) But while the scope of article 78 review is narrow, courts are not required to render blind obeisance to an administrator’s determination after a hearing, lest they abdicate their judi

1974Nor did the employer make timely objection to the division’s d.elay in finding probable cause and serving notice of the hearing date; instead A & P waited until after the commissioner had made a determination against A & P on the merits to object (cf. Irish v. Securities & Exchange Comm., 367 F. 2d 637 , cert. den. 386 U. S. 911 ).

1974Nor did the employer make timely objection to the division’s d.elay in finding probable cause and serving notice of the hearing date; instead A & P waited until after the commissioner had made a determination against A & P on the merits to object (cf. Irish v. Securities & Exchange Comm., 367 F. 2d 637 , cert. den. 386 U. S. 911 ).