quasi-judicial hearing 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 ).

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

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).

2017In this CPLR article 78 proceeding, the petitioner challenges an agency determination that was not made after a quasi-judicial hearing required by law and, thus, the standard of review is whether the HPD’s determination was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion (see Matter of Peckham v Calogero, 12 NY3d 424, 431 [2009]; Matter of Colton v Berman, 21 NY2d 322, 329 [1967]; Matter of Gottlieb v City of New York, 129 AD3d 724, 725 [2015]).

2016We agree and affirm. “[T]he standard of review for this proceeding, which challenges a determination that was not made after a quasi-judicial hearing, is whether [DHSES’s] determination was arbitrary and capricious” (Matter of CDE Elec., Inc. v Rivera, 124 AD3d 1178, 1180 [2015]; see CPLR 7803 [3]). “ ‘An action is arbitrary and capricious when it is taken without sound basis in reason or regard to the facts’ ” (Matter of CDE Elec., Inc. v Rivera, 124 AD3d at 1180 , quoting Matter of Peckham v Calogero, 12 NY3d 424, 431 [2009]).

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.

2013In such a proceeding, courts “examine whether the action taken by the agency has a rational basis” and will overturn that action only “where it is ‘taken without sound basis in reason’ or ‘regard to the facts’ ” (Matter of Wooley v New York State Dept, of Correctional Servs., 15 NY3d 275, 280 [2010], quoting Matter of Peckham v Calogero, 12 NY3d 424, 431 [2009]; see Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist.

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 ).

2018"A substantial evidence issue arises only where a quasi-judicial hearing has been held and evidence [has been] taken pursuant to law" ( Scherz , 93 AD3d at 1303 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

2018"A substantial evidence issue arises only where a quasi-judicial hearing has been held and evidence [has been] taken pursuant to law' . . . and[, here,] no hearing was held" ( Matter of Scherz v New York State Dept. of Health , 93 AD3d 1302, 1303 [4th Dept 2012]; see Matter of Occupational Safety & Envtl.

2017In this CPLR article 78 proceeding, the petitioner challenges an agency determination that was not made after a quasi-judicial hearing required by law and, thus, the standard of review is whether the HPD’s determination was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion (see Matter of Peckham v Calogero, 12 NY3d 424, 431 [2009]; Matter of Colton v Berman, 21 NY2d 322, 329 [1967]; Matter of Gottlieb v City of New York, 129 AD3d 724, 725 [2015]).

1984An article 78 proceeding should, pursuant to CPLR 7803 (subd 4) and 7804 (subd [g]), only be transferred to the Appellate Division when a quasi-judicial hearing at which evidence is taken is held and the resulting determination is challenged as not being supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Colton v Berman, 21 NY2d 322, 329 ).

2011A substantial evidence issue “ ‘arises only where a quasi-judicial hearing has been held and evidence taken pursuant to law’ ” (Matter of Bonded Concrete v Town Bd. of Town of Rotterdam, 176 AD2d 1137, 1137-1138 [1991]).

2011A substantial evidence issue “ ‘arises only where a quasi-judicial hearing has been held and evidence taken pursuant to law‘ ” (Matter of Bonded Concrete v Town Bd. of Town of Rotterdam, 176 AD2d 1137, 1137-1138 [1991] [emphasis added]).

2015As petitioner acknowledges, the standard of review for this proceeding, which challenges a determination that was not made after a quasi-judicial hearing, is whether the Commissioner’s determination was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion (see CPLR 7803 [3]; Matter of Beck-Nichols v Bianco, 20 NY3d 540, 559 [2013]; Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist.

2014In all CPLR article 78 proceedings to review determinations that are not made after a quasi-judicial hearing mandated by law, including this one, “the proper standard for judicial review ... is whether the Board’s determination was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion (see CPLR 7803 [3])” (Matter of Beck-Nichols v Bianco, 20 NY3d 540, 559 [2013]; see Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist.

2026Where, as here, a determination is made after a public hearing that is not a quasi-judicial hearing based upon sworn testimony, "courts consider 'substantial evidence' only to determine whether the record contains sufficient evidence to support the rationality of the Board's determination" ( Matter of Sasso v Osgood , 86 NY2d 374, 384 n 2; see Matter of Denisov v DeChance , 236 AD3d 905, 907).

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 ).

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

2016Servs. of Nassau County, 63 NY2d 100, 102 [1984]). “[R] eview of an agency determination that was not made after a quasi-judicial hearing is limited to consideration 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 Drumm v Cassano, 129 AD3d 957, 958 [2015]; see CPLR 7803 [3]).

2016Servs. of Nassau County, 63 NY2d 100, 102 [1984]). “[R] eview of an agency determination that was not made after a quasi-judicial hearing is limited to consideration 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 Drumm v Cassano, 129 AD3d 957, 958 [2015]; see CPLR 7803 [3]).

2016Servs. of Nassau County, 63 NY2d 100, 102 [1984]). “[R] eview of an agency determination that was not made after a quasi-judicial hearing is limited to consideration 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 Drumm v Cassano, 129 AD3d 957, 958 [2015]; see CPLR 7803 [3]).

2016Servs. of Nassau County, 63 NY2d 100, 102 [1984]). “[R] eview of an agency determination that was not made after a quasi-judicial hearing is limited to consideration 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 Drumm v Cassano, 129 AD3d 957, 958 [2015]; see CPLR 7803 [3]).

2012A substantial evidence issue “arises only where a quasi-judicial hearing has been held and evidence -2- 273 TP 11-01893 [has been] taken pursuant to law” (Matter of Gigliotti v Bianco, 82 AD3d 1636, 1638 [internal quotation marks omitted]) and no hearing was held or required in this case (see id.).

2012A substantial evidence issue “arises only where a quasi-judicial hearing has been held and evidence [has been] taken pursuant to law” (Matter of Gigliotti v Bianco, 82 AD3d 1636, 1638 [2011] [internal quotation marks omitted]) and no hearing was held or required in this case (see id.).

2011Here, the District did not conduct a hearing before terminating petitioner’s employment, nor was such a hearing “required by statute or law” (Matter of Colton v Berman, 21 NY2d 322, 329 [1967]; see Matter of O’Connor v Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of Niagara Falls, 48 AD3d 1254 [2008], lv dismissed 10 NY3d 928 [2008]; see generally Matter of Felix v New York City Dept. of City wide Admin.

2011Here, the District did not conduct a hearing before terminating petitioner’s employment, nor was such a hearing “required by statute or law” (Matter of Colton v Berman, 21 NY2d 322, 329 ; see Matter of O’Connor v Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of Niagara Falls, 48 AD3d 1254 , lv dismissed 10 NY3d 928 ; see generally Matter of Felix v New York City Dept. of Citywide Admin.

2011Here, the District did not conduct a hearing before terminating petitioner’s employment, nor was such a hearing “required by statute or law” (Matter of Colton v Berman, 21 NY2d 322, 329 [1967]; see Matter of O’Connor v Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of Niagara Falls, 48 AD3d 1254 [2008], lv dismissed 10 NY3d 928 [2008]; see generally Matter of Felix v New York City Dept. of City wide Admin.

2011Here, the District did not conduct a hearing before terminating petitioner’s employment, nor was such a hearing “required by statute or law” (Matter of Colton v Berman, 21 NY2d 322, 329 ; see Matter of O’Connor v Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of Niagara Falls, 48 AD3d 1254 , lv dismissed 10 NY3d 928 ; see generally Matter of Felix v New York City Dept. of Citywide Admin.

1993Because the petition seeks review of a determination made after a quasi-judicial hearing required by law, at which evidence was adduced, the petition raises a substantial evidence question and should have been transferred to this Court (see, CPLR 7804 [g]; Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222 , 231).

1977In reviewing the determinations of the commissioner, the proper test to be utilized is whether his actions were arbitrary and capricious, i.e., whether the action in question, "should have been taken, or is justified * * * and whether the administrative action is without foundation in fact.” (Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222 , 231, citing 1 NY Jur, Administrative Law, § 184, p 609.) The question for determination is whether there exists a rational basis for the orders closing the shellfish lands, since the review being made is not one involving a determination made after a quasi-ju

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 ).

2018When a petitioner challenges an administrative determination that was not made after a quasi-judicial hearing, the court must consider whether the determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, affected by an error of law, or arbitrary and capricious ( see CPLR 7803[3]; Matter of Jefferson v New York City Bd. of Educ., 146 AD3d at 780 ; Matter of Gottlieb v City of New York, 129 AD3d at 725 ).

2017When a petitioner challenges an administrative determination that was not made after a quasi-judicial hearing, the court must consider whether the determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, affected by an error of law, or arbitrary and capricious (see CPLR 7803 [3]; Matter of Gottlieb v City of New York, 129 AD3d at 725 ; Matter of JP & Assoc.

2017Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180 [1978]; Matter of Bosch v City of Middletown, N.Y., 127 AD3d 855, 855-856 [2015]; Matter of Martin v Board of Trustees of the Vil. of Pelham Manor, 86 AD3d 645 [2011]).

2012Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176 [1978]; see Matter of Halperin v City of New Rochelle, 24 AD3d 768, 769-770 [2005]).

2026Not only those individuals who serve in a judicial capacity, but those who are delegated judicial or “quasi-judicial” functions, are immune from civil suits based on any actions taken in their official capacities, including court-appointed evaluators (see Mosher-Simons v County of Allegany, 99 NY2d 214, 220 [2002] [“the antecedent fact-gathering process necessary for the court to reach (a) placement decision” in a Family Court proceeding “must be cloaked with 100721/2025 MEIROWITZ, SPENCER vs.

2026Not only those individuals who serve in a judicial capacity, but those who are delegated judicial or “quasi-judicial” functions, are immune from civil suits based on any actions taken in their official capacities, including court-appointed evaluators (see Mosher-Simons v County of Allegany, 99 NY2d 214, 220 [2002] [“the antecedent fact-gathering process necessary for the court to reach (a) placement decision” in a Family Court proceeding “must be cloaked with 100721/2025 MEIROWITZ, SPENCER vs.

2026The court further agrees with the defendant that a physician appointed by a court to evaluate the physical or mental health of a party is protected by the doctrine of quasi-judicial immunity, which “provides absolute immunity from subsequent damages liability for all persons-- -governmental or otherwise---who were integral parts of the judicial process” (Briscoe v LaHue, 460 US 325, 335 [1983]).

2026The court further agrees with the defendant that a physician appointed by a court to evaluate the physical or mental health of a party is protected by the doctrine of quasi-judicial immunity, which “provides absolute immunity from subsequent damages liability for all persons-- -governmental or otherwise---who were integral parts of the judicial process” (Briscoe v LaHue, 460 US 325, 335 [1983]).