exhaustion of administrative remedies doctrine in New York

79 New York opinions name it 8 courts 1958–2026 8 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (24)

Case	Followed	Cited
Watergate II Apartments v. Buffalo Sewer Authoritygreen ny · 1978 · cited in 37 New York opinions naming this issue, 1980–2026 2 sentences 2026Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies and Election of Remedies The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies requires that one first exhaust all available administrative channels before seeking relief in an Article 78 proceeding ( see Watergate II Apts. v Buffalo Sewer Auth. , 46 NY2d 52, 57 [1978]; Stoll v County of Nassau , 227 AD3d 1085 , 1086 [2d Dept 2024]; CPLR § 7801[1]). 2026Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies and Election of Remedies The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies requires that one first exhaust all available administrative channels before seeking relief in an Article 78 proceeding ( see Watergate II Apts. v Buffalo Sewer Auth. , 46 NY2d 52, 57 [1978]; Stoll v County of Nassau , 227 AD3d 1085, 1086 [2d Dept 2024]; CPLR § 7801[1]).	12	37
Young Men's Christian Ass'n v. Rochester Pure Waters Districtgreen ny · 1975 · cited in 15 New York opinions naming this issue, 1977–2024 2 sentences 2024"The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies requires 'litigants to address their complaints initially to administrative tribunals, rather than to the courts, and to exhaust all possibilities of obtaining relief through administrative channels before appealing to the courts" (Young Men's ChristianAss'n v Rochester Pure Waters Dist., 37 NY2d 371, 375 [1975]). 2005Petitioners’ cross appeal to the PSC specifically states that they “write to cross-appeal from only so much of the determination by [the Hearing Officer] that limited the relief granted to complainants to six years.” Based on the premise that “[t]he doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies requires ‘litigants to address their complaints initially to administrative tribunals, rather than to the courts, and ... to exhaust all possibilities of obtaining relief through administrative channels before appealing to the courts’ ” (Young Men’s Christian Assn. v Rochester Pure Waters Dist., 37	8	15
Town of Oyster Bay v. Kirklandgreen nyappdiv · 2011 · cited in 4 New York opinions naming this issue, 2012–2013 2 sentences 2013In general, “[t]he doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies applies to actions for declaratory judgments” (Town of Oyster Bay v Kirkland, 81 AD3d 812, 815 [2011], affd 19 NY3d 1035 [2012]). 2013In general, “[t]he doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies applies to actions for declaratory judgments” (Town of Oyster Bay v Kirkland, 81 AD3d 812, 815 [2011], affd 19 NY3d 1035 [2012]).	4	4
Slater v. Gallmangreen ny · 1975 · cited in 4 New York opinions naming this issue, 1991–2012 2 sentences 2012“The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies applies to actions for declaratory judgments,” although there are exceptions available where, inter alia, “resort to administrative remedies would be futile or would cause irreparable injury” (Town of Oyster Bay v Kirkland, 81 AD3d 812, 815 [2011], lv granted 17 NY3d 716 [2011]; see Watergate II Apts. v Buffalo Sewer Auth., 46 NY2d 52, 57 [1978]; Slater v Gallman, 38 NY2d 1, 3-4 [1975]). 2012“The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies applies to actions for declaratory judgments,” although there are exceptions available where, inter alia, “resort to administrative remedies would be futile or would cause irreparable injury” (Town of Oyster Bay v Kirkland, 81 AD3d 812, 815 [2011], lv granted 17 NY3d 716 [2011]; see Watergate II Apts. v Buffalo Sewer Auth., 46 NY2d 52, 57 [1978]; Slater v Gallman, 38 NY2d 1, 3-4 [1975]).	3	4
Sirju-Kar Corp. v. City of New Yorkgreen nyappdiv · 2009 · cited in 3 New York opinions naming this issue, 2013–2015 2 sentences 2015There is no evidence in the record that the petitioner exhausted its administrative remedies with respect to these 231 NOVs, or that any exception to the exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement would apply (see Matter of Vataksi v Environmental Control Bd., 107 AD3d 905 [2013]; Matter of Sirju-Kar Corp. v City of New York, 64 AD3d 716, 717 [2009]; see generally Watergate II Apts. v Buffalo Sewer Auth., 46 NY2d 52, 57 [1978]). 2013The petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to these notices of violation, and there is no basis in the record to conclude that any exception to the exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement would apply (see Matter of Sirju-Kar Corp. v City of New York, 64 AD3d 716, 717 [2009]; see generally Watergate II Apts. v Buffalo Sewer Auth., 46 NY2d 52, 57 [1978]; NYCTL 2009-A Trust v Tsafatinos, 101 AD3d 1092, 1093 [2012]; Matter of Nazir v Charge & Ride, Inc., 95 AD3d 1215, 1216 [2012]; Matter of Laureiro v New York City Dept. of Consumer Affairs, 41 AD3d 717, 71	3	3
Bankers Trust Corp. v. New York City Department of Financegreen ny · 2003 · cited in 6 New York opinions naming this issue, 2009–2023 2 sentences 2023Here, not only did the plaintiff fail to establish an exception to the mootness doctrine by showing that the issues raised typically evade review or are substantial and novel ( see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne , 50 NY2d 707, 714-715 ; Ryan, Inc. v New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin. , 83 AD3d 482, 483 ), but the plaintiff also failed to exhaust the exclusive statutory remedies provided in the Tax Law ( see Tax Law §§ 690[a], [b]; 2016; CPLR 506[b][2]; 20 NYCRR 3000.20) and failed to establish that an exception to the exhaustion of administrative remedies doctrine was applicable ( see Ban 2014The petitioner failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies (see Matter of Murray v Downey, 48 AD3d 817, 818 [2008]; Matter of Hammond v Village of Elmsford, 8 AD3d 484, 485 [2004]; Matter of Brown v County of Nassau, 288 AD2d 216, 217 [2001]), and failed to establish that an exception to the exhaustion of administrative remedies doctrine was applicable (see Bankers Trust Corp. v New York City Dept. of Fin., 1 NY3d 315, 322 [2003]; Matter of Amorosano-LePore v Grant, 56 AD3d 663 , 664-665 [2008]; Matter of Elliott v Arlington Cent.	2	6
Lehigh Portland Cement Co. v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservationgreen ny · 1995 · cited in 3 New York opinions naming this issue, 2006–2026 2 sentences 2026Conservation , 87 NY2d 136, 140 [1995]). 2010Conservation, 87 NY2d 136, 140-141 [1995] [exhaustion not required where further administrative steps would be futile in light of a firm statement of agency policy]; G.	2	3
Adler v. 720 Park Avenue Corp.green nyappdiv · 1982 · cited in 3 New York opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017 2 sentences 2017We further agree with plaintiffs that the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies has no application here inasmuch as plaintiffs are seeking money damages in this action based on defendant’s alleged negligent misrepresentation (see Matter of Stein v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 87 AD2d 514, 514 [1982]). 2017We further agree with plaintiffs that the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies has no application here inasmuch as plaintiffs are seeking money damages in this action based on defendant’s alleged negligent misrepresentation (see Matter of Stein v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 87 AD2d 514, 514 [1982]).	2	3
Fike v. Town of Webstergreen nyappdiv · 2004 · cited in 3 New York opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017 2 sentences 2017Finally, we reject plaintiffs’ contention that the court erred in dismissing their remaining cause of action inasmuch as plaintiffs failed to state a viable procedural due process cause of action (see Fike v Town of Webster, 11 AD3d 888, 889-890 [2004]). 2017Finally, we reject plaintiffs’ contention that the court erred in dismissing their remaining cause of action inasmuch as plaintiffs failed to state a viable procedural due process cause of action (see Fike v Town of Webster, 11 AD3d 888, 889-890 [2004]).	2	3
Murray v. Downeygreen nyappdiv · 2008 · cited in 3 New York opinions naming this issue, 2009–2014 2 sentences 2014The petitioner failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies (see Matter of Murray v Downey, 48 AD3d 817, 818 [2008]; Matter of Hammond v Village of Elmsford, 8 AD3d 484, 485 [2004]; Matter of Brown v County of Nassau, 288 AD2d 216, 217 [2001]), and failed to establish that an exception to the exhaustion of administrative remedies doctrine was applicable (see Bankers Trust Corp. v New York City Dept. of Fin., 1 NY3d 315, 322 [2003]; Matter of Amorosano-LePore v Grant, 56 AD3d 663 , 664-665 [2008]; Matter of Elliott v Arlington Cent. 2014The petitioner failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies (see Matter of Murray v Downey, 48 AD3d 817, 818 [2008]; Matter of Hammond v Village of Elmsford, 8 AD3d 484, 485 [2004]; Matter of Brown v County of Nassau, 288 AD2d 216, 217 [2001]), and failed to establish that an exception to the exhaustion of administrative remedies doctrine was applicable (see Bankers Trust Corp. v New York City Dept. of Fin., 1 NY3d 315, 322 [2003]; Matter of Amorosano-LePore v Grant, 56 AD3d 663 , 664-665 [2008]; Matter of Elliott v Arlington Cent.	2	3
Elliott v. Arlington Central School Districtgreen nyappdiv · 1988 · cited in 2 New York opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 2 sentences 2014School Dist., 143 AD2d 662, 663 [1988]). 2014School Dist., 143 AD2d 662, 663 [1988]).	2	2
Hammond v. Village of Elmsfordgreen nyappdiv · 2004 · cited in 2 New York opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 2 sentences 2014The petitioner failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies (see Matter of Murray v Downey, 48 AD3d 817, 818 [2008]; Matter of Hammond v Village of Elmsford, 8 AD3d 484, 485 [2004]; Matter of Brown v County of Nassau, 288 AD2d 216, 217 [2001]), and failed to establish that an exception to the exhaustion of administrative remedies doctrine was applicable (see Bankers Trust Corp. v New York City Dept. of Fin., 1 NY3d 315, 322 [2003]; Matter of Amorosano-LePore v Grant, 56 AD3d 663 , 664-665 [2008]; Matter of Elliott v Arlington Cent. 2014The petitioner failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies (see Matter of Murray v Downey, 48 AD3d 817, 818 [2008]; Matter of Hammond v Village of Elmsford, 8 AD3d 484, 485 [2004]; Matter of Brown v County of Nassau, 288 AD2d 216, 217 [2001]), and failed to establish that an exception to the exhaustion of administrative remedies doctrine was applicable (see Bankers Trust Corp. v New York City Dept. of Fin., 1 NY3d 315, 322 [2003]; Matter of Amorosano-LePore v Grant, 56 AD3d 663 , 664-665 [2008]; Matter of Elliott v Arlington Cent.	2	2
Brown v. County of Nassaugreen nyappdiv · 2001 · cited in 2 New York opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 2 sentences 2014The petitioner failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies (see Matter of Murray v Downey, 48 AD3d 817, 818 [2008]; Matter of Hammond v Village of Elmsford, 8 AD3d 484, 485 [2004]; Matter of Brown v County of Nassau, 288 AD2d 216, 217 [2001]), and failed to establish that an exception to the exhaustion of administrative remedies doctrine was applicable (see Bankers Trust Corp. v New York City Dept. of Fin., 1 NY3d 315, 322 [2003]; Matter of Amorosano-LePore v Grant, 56 AD3d 663 , 664-665 [2008]; Matter of Elliott v Arlington Cent. 2014The petitioner failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies (see Matter of Murray v Downey, 48 AD3d 817, 818 [2008]; Matter of Hammond v Village of Elmsford, 8 AD3d 484, 485 [2004]; Matter of Brown v County of Nassau, 288 AD2d 216, 217 [2001]), and failed to establish that an exception to the exhaustion of administrative remedies doctrine was applicable (see Bankers Trust Corp. v New York City Dept. of Fin., 1 NY3d 315, 322 [2003]; Matter of Amorosano-LePore v Grant, 56 AD3d 663 , 664-665 [2008]; Matter of Elliott v Arlington Cent.	2	2
Muhammad Shahid Nazir v. Charge & Ride, Inc.green nyappdiv · 2012 · cited in 2 New York opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 2 sentences 2013The petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to these notices of violation, and there is no basis in the record to conclude that any exception to the exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement would apply (see Matter of Sirju-Kar Corp. v City of New York, 64 AD3d 716, 717 [2009]; see generally Watergate II Apts. v Buffalo Sewer Auth., 46 NY2d 52, 57 [1978]; NYCTL 2009-A Trust v Tsafatinos, 101 AD3d 1092, 1093 [2012]; Matter of Nazir v Charge & Ride, Inc., 95 AD3d 1215, 1216 [2012]; Matter of Laureiro v New York City Dept. of Consumer Affairs, 41 AD3d 717, 71 2013The petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to these notices of violation, and there is no basis in the record to conclude that any exception to the exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement would apply (see Matter of Sirju-Kar Corp. v City of New York, 64 AD3d 716, 717 [2009]; see generally Watergate II Apts. v Buffalo Sewer Auth., 46 NY2d 52, 57 [1978]; NYCTL 2009-A Trust v Tsafatinos, 101 AD3d 1092, 1093 [2012]; Matter of Nazir v Charge & Ride, Inc., 95 AD3d 1215, 1216 [2012]; Matter of Laureiro v New York City Dept. of Consumer Affairs, 41 AD3d 717, 71	2	2
NYCTL 2009-A Trust v. Tsafatinosgreen nyappdiv · 2012 · cited in 2 New York opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 2 sentences 2013The petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to these notices of violation, and there is no basis in the record to conclude that any exception to the exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement would apply (see Matter of Sirju-Kar Corp. v City of New York, 64 AD3d 716, 717 [2009]; see generally Watergate II Apts. v Buffalo Sewer Auth., 46 NY2d 52, 57 [1978]; NYCTL 2009-A Trust v Tsafatinos, 101 AD3d 1092, 1093 [2012]; Matter of Nazir v Charge & Ride, Inc., 95 AD3d 1215, 1216 [2012]; Matter of Laureiro v New York City Dept. of Consumer Affairs, 41 AD3d 717, 71 2013The petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to these notices of violation, and there is no basis in the record to conclude that any exception to the exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement would apply (see Matter of Sirju-Kar Corp. v City of New York, 64 AD3d 716, 717 [2009]; see generally Watergate II Apts. v Buffalo Sewer Auth., 46 NY2d 52, 57 [1978]; NYCTL 2009-A Trust v Tsafatinos, 101 AD3d 1092, 1093 [2012]; Matter of Nazir v Charge & Ride, Inc., 95 AD3d 1215, 1216 [2012]; Matter of Laureiro v New York City Dept. of Consumer Affairs, 41 AD3d 717, 71	2	2
Igartua v. Selskygreen nyappdiv · 2007 · cited in 2 New York opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 2 sentences 2013The petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to these notices of violation, and there is no basis in the record to conclude that any exception to the exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement would apply (see Matter of Sirju-Kar Corp. v City of New York, 64 AD3d 716, 717 [2009]; see generally Watergate II Apts. v Buffalo Sewer Auth., 46 NY2d 52, 57 [1978]; NYCTL 2009-A Trust v Tsafatinos, 101 AD3d 1092, 1093 [2012]; Matter of Nazir v Charge & Ride, Inc., 95 AD3d 1215, 1216 [2012]; Matter of Laureiro v New York City Dept. of Consumer Affairs, 41 AD3d 717, 71 2013The petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to these notices of violation, and there is no basis in the record to conclude that any exception to the exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement would apply (see Matter of Sirju-Kar Corp. v City of New York, 64 AD3d 716, 717 [2009]; see generally Watergate II Apts. v Buffalo Sewer Auth., 46 NY2d 52, 57 [1978]; NYCTL 2009-A Trust v Tsafatinos, 101 AD3d 1092, 1093 [2012]; Matter of Nazir v Charge & Ride, Inc., 95 AD3d 1215, 1216 [2012]; Matter of Laureiro v New York City Dept. of Consumer Affairs, 41 AD3d 717, 71	2	2
Lone Pine Steering Committee v. United States Environmental Protection Agencygreen scotus · 1986 · cited in 2 New York opinions naming this issue, 1993–2001 2 sentences 2001Generally, the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies requires “ ‘litigants to address their complaints initially to administrative tribunals, rather than to the courts and * * * to exhaust all possibilities of obtaining relief through administrative channels before appealing to the courts’ ” (Young Men’s Christian Assn. v Rochester Pure Waters Dist., 37 NY2d 371, 375 , quoting 2 Cooper, State Administrative Law, at 561; see, Matter of Cortlandt Nursing Home v Axelrod, 66 NY2d 169 , cert denied 476 US 1115 ). 1993(Young Men’s Christian Assn. v Rochester Pure Waters Dist., 37 NY2d 371, 375 ; see also, Matter of Cortlandt Nursing Home v Axelrod, 66 NY2d 169, 180 , cert denied 476 US 1115 .) Thus, absent extraordinary circumstances, courts are constrained not to interject themselves into ongoing administrative proceedings until final resolution of those proceedings before the agency.	2	2
Cortlandt Nursing Home v. Axelrodgreen ny · 1985 · cited in 2 New York opinions naming this issue, 1993–2001 2 sentences 2001Generally, the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies requires “ ‘litigants to address their complaints initially to administrative tribunals, rather than to the courts and * * * to exhaust all possibilities of obtaining relief through administrative channels before appealing to the courts’ ” (Young Men’s Christian Assn. v Rochester Pure Waters Dist., 37 NY2d 371, 375 , quoting 2 Cooper, State Administrative Law, at 561; see, Matter of Cortlandt Nursing Home v Axelrod, 66 NY2d 169 , cert denied 476 US 1115 ). 1993(Young Men’s Christian Assn. v Rochester Pure Waters Dist., 37 NY2d 371, 375 ; see also, Matter of Cortlandt Nursing Home v Axelrod, 66 NY2d 169, 180 , cert denied 476 US 1115 .) Thus, absent extraordinary circumstances, courts are constrained not to interject themselves into ongoing administrative proceedings until final resolution of those proceedings before the agency.	2	2
Fahey v. Peralesgreen nyappdiv · 1988 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017	1	1
North Shore University Hospital v. Axelrodgreen nyappdiv · 1994 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017	1	1
Pantel v. Workmen's Circle/Arbetter Ring Branch 281green nyappdiv · 2001 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011	1	1
Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co. v. Urbachgreen nyappdiv · 2000 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006	1	1
Kessel v. Public Service Commissiongreen nyappdiv · 1987 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005	1	1
Schachter v. Tomaselligreen nyappdiv · 1984 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 1988–1988	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (56)

Case	Cited	Years
Brunjes v. Nocella green nyappdiv · 2007 2 sentences 2009He also failed to establish that an exception to the exhaustion of administrative remedies doctrine was applicable (see Watergate II Apts, v Buffalo Sewer Auth., 46 NY2d at 57 ; Matter of Murray v Downey, 48 AD3d 817 [2008]; Matter of Brunjes v Nocella, 40 AD3d 1088 [2007] ). 2008The petitioners failed to exhaust an available administrative remedy and failed to establish that an exception to the exhaustion of administrative remedies doctrine was applicable (see Watergate II Apts. v Buffalo Sewer Auth., 46 NY2d 52 [1978]; Matter of Brunjes v Nocella, 40 AD3d 1088 [2007]; Matter of Podolsky v Daniels, 21 AD3d 559 [2005]).	3	2008–2009
Aldrich v. Pattison green nyappdiv · 1985 2 sentences 1996First, because the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies requires that judicial review of administrative action be limited to a consideration of the issues actually raised before the administrative agency making the determination (see, Matter of Clowry v Town of Pawling, 202 AD2d 663, 664 ; Aldrich v Pattison, 107 AD2d 258, 267-268 ; Matter of Celestial Food Corp. v New York State Liq. 1986The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies requires that one first exhaust all available administrative channels before looking to the courts for relief (see, McKart v United States, 395 US 185 ; Watergate II Apts, v Buffalo Sewer Auth., 46 NY2d 52 ; Aldrich v Pattison, 107 AD2d 258 ).	3	1986–2002
Unemployment Compensation Comm'n of Alaska v. Aragon green scotus · 1946 2 sentences 1985It is bottomed on the principle that ‘[a] reviewing court usurps the agency’s function when it sets aside the administrative determination upon a ground not theretofore presented and deprives the [agency] of an opportunity to consider the matter, make its ruling, and state the reasons for its action’ (Unemployment Comm. v Aragon, 329 US 143, 155 ; see, also, 3 Davis, Administrative Law, § 20.06)” (Young Men’s Christian Assn. v Rochester Pure Waters Dist., 37 NY2d 371, 375 ; see also, Matter of Yonkers Gardens Co. v State of New York Div. of Housing & Community Renewal, 51 NY2d 966, 967-968 ; W 1977It is bottomed on the principle that '[a] reviewing court usurps the agency’s function when it sets aside the adminsitrative determination upon a ground not theretofore presented and deprives the Commission of an opportunity to consider the matter, make its ruling, and state the reasons for its action’ (Unemployment Comm. v Aragon, 329 US 143, 155 ; see, also, 3 Davis, Administrative Law, § 20.06).” If the State Human Rights Division chooses not to determine whether the Department of Correctional Services acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner as an element in determining whether an unlawf	3	1975–1985
El Paso Corp. v. New York State Department of Taxation & Finance green nyappdiv · 2007 2 sentences 2023Here, not only did the plaintiff fail to establish an exception to the mootness doctrine by showing that the issues raised typically evade review or are substantial and novel ( see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne , 50 NY2d 707, 714-715 ; Ryan, Inc. v New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin. , 83 AD3d 482, 483 ), but the plaintiff also failed to exhaust the exclusive statutory remedies provided in the Tax Law ( see Tax Law §§ 690[a], [b]; 2016; CPLR 506[b][2]; 20 NYCRR 3000.20) and failed to establish that an exception to the exhaustion of administrative remedies doctrine was applicable ( see Ban 2009Here, the plaintiff failed to exhaust the exclusive statutory remedies provided in the Tax Law (see Tax Law § 170 [3-a] [a]; § 1138 [a] [1]; § 1139 [c]; §§ 1140, 2016), and failed to establish that an exception to the exhaustion of administrative remedies doctrine was applicable (see Tax Law § 1140; Bankers Trust Corp. v New York City Dept. of Fin., 1 NY3d at 321-322 ; El Paso Corp. v New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin., 36 AD3d at 658 ).	2	2009–2023
Connerton v. Ryan green nyappdiv · 2011 2 sentences 2014The exhaustion of administrative remedies rule “ ‘furthers the salutory goal[ ] of . . . preventing premature judicial interference’ with the administrative process” (Matter of Connerton v Ryan, 86 AD3d at 699 , quoting Watergate II Apts. v Buffalo Sewer Auth., 46 NY2d at 57 ). 2014The exhaustion of administrative remedies rule “ ‘furthers the salutory goal[ ] of . . . preventing premature judicial interference’ with the administrative process” (Matter of Connerton v Ryan, 86 AD3d at 699 , quoting Watergate II Apts. v Buffalo Sewer Auth., 46 NY2d at 57 ).	2	2014–2014
Town of Oyster Bay v. Kirkland green ny · 2012 2 sentences 2013In general, “[t]he doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies applies to actions for declaratory judgments” (Town of Oyster Bay v Kirkland, 81 AD3d 812, 815 [2011], affd 19 NY3d 1035 [2012]). 2013In general, “[t]he doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies applies to actions for declaratory judgments” (Town of Oyster Bay v Kirkland, 81 AD3d 812, 815 [2011], affd 19 NY3d 1035 [2012]).	2	2013–2013
People v. Neuer green ny · 2011 2 sentences 2012“The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies applies to actions for declaratory judgments,” although there are exceptions available where, inter alia, “resort to administrative remedies would be futile or would cause irreparable injury” (Town of Oyster Bay v Kirkland, 81 AD3d 812, 815 [2011], lv granted 17 NY3d 716 [2011]; see Watergate II Apts. v Buffalo Sewer Auth., 46 NY2d 52, 57 [1978]; Slater v Gallman, 38 NY2d 1, 3-4 [1975]). 2012“The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies applies to actions for declaratory judgments,” although there are exceptions available where, inter alia, “resort to administrative remedies would be futile or would cause irreparable injury” (Town of Oyster Bay v Kirkland, 81 AD3d 812, 815 [2011], lv granted 17 NY3d 716 [2011]; see Watergate II Apts. v Buffalo Sewer Auth., 46 NY2d 52, 57 [1978]; Slater v Gallman, 38 NY2d 1, 3-4 [1975]).	2	2012–2012
Rosenberg v. 135 Willow Co. neutral nyappdiv · 1987 2 sentences 2007Dept. of Bldgs., 146 AD2d 473 [1989]; Rosenberg v 135 Willow Co., 130 AD2d 566 [1987]). 1989While ordinarily the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies would require petitioner to bring his claim before the Board of Standards and Appeals, where the only question raised is a question of law, viz., whether the sign violates the Zoning Resolution, " '[t]he expertise of the Board of Standards and Appeals is not involved and has no relevancy to the case at bar’ ” (Rosenberg v 135 Willow Co., 130 AD2d 566, 567 , quoting Namro Holding Corp. v City of New York, 17 AD2d 431, 435 , affd 14 NY2d 693 ).	2	1989–2007
Long Beach Memorial Nursing Home v. D'Elia green nyappdiv · 1985 2 sentences 2000Nursing Home v D’Elia, 108 AD2d 901 ). 1990Nursing Home v D’Elia, 108 AD2d 901 ).	2	1990–2000
Steinberg v. Sea Gate Ass'n neutral nyappdiv · 1986 2 sentences 1993Additionally, we agree with the Supreme Court’s dismissal of this proceeding pursuant to the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies (see generally, Watergate II Apts, v Buffalo Sewer Auth., 46 NY2d 52, 57 ; Steinberg v Sea Gate Assn., 118 AD2d 558 ), inasmuch as the challenged determination was subject to review by the Village Board of Appeals (see, Village Law § 7-712 [2]; Matter of Rattner v Planning Commn., 156 AD2d 521 ; Engert v Phillips, 150 AD2d 752 ; Matter of Turner v Town of Grand Is. 1987The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies requires that one first exhaust all available administrative channels before looking to the courts for relief (see, McKart v United States, 395 US 185 ; Watergate II Apts. v Buffalo Sewer Auth., 46 NY2d 52 ; Steinberg v Sea Gate Assn., 118 AD2d 558 ).	2	1987–1993
McKart v. United States green scotus · 1969 2 sentences 1987The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies requires that one first exhaust all available administrative channels before looking to the courts for relief (see, McKart v United States, 395 US 185 ; Watergate II Apts. v Buffalo Sewer Auth., 46 NY2d 52 ; Steinberg v Sea Gate Assn., 118 AD2d 558 ). 1986The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies requires that one first exhaust all available administrative channels before looking to the courts for relief (see, McKart v United States, 395 US 185 ; Watergate II Apts, v Buffalo Sewer Auth., 46 NY2d 52 ; Aldrich v Pattison, 107 AD2d 258 ).	2	1986–1987
Leonard v. Horton neutral nyappdiv · 1951 2 sentences 1964(Matter of Van Allen v. McCleary, 27 Misc 2d 81 ; Matter of Leonard v. Horton, 278 App. Div. 62 ; Matter of Buffalo Audio Center Arrolite Co. v. Union Free School Dist., 29 Misc 2d 871 , affd. 15 AD 2d 991 .) The petitioners’ application is granted to the extent hereinbefore indicated. 1961(Toscano v. McGoldrick, 300 N. Y. 156, 161, 162 ; Matter of Gimprich v. Board of Educ., 306 N. Y. 401, 406, 407 .) The proceeding being one in the nature of a mandamus, the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies does not apply (Matter of Leonard v. Horton, 278 App. Div. 62 ) and the court must determine merely whether or not the respondent was “specifically enjoined by law” (Civ.	2	1961–1964
Kostick v. Del Castillo green nyappdiv · 1987	1	2025–2025
Essex County v. Zagata green ny · 1998	1	2024–2024
Ryan, Inc. v. New York State Department of Taxation & Finance green nyappdiv · 2011	1	2023–2023
Hearst Corp. v. Clyne green ny · 1980	1	2023–2023
Mirenberg v. Lynbrook Union Free School District Board of Education green nyappdiv · 2009	1	2016–2016
Vataksi v. Environmental Control Board green nyappdiv · 2013	1	2015–2015
Podolsky v. Daniels green nyappdiv · 2005	1	2008–2008
Tasadfoy v. Town of Wappinger green nyappdiv · 2005	1	2008–2008
Sievers v. City of New York Department of Buildings green nyappdiv · 1989	1	2007–2007
Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co. v. Urbach green ny · 2001	1	2006–2006
Vaval v. Holtzman neutral nyappdiv · 1989	1	2002–2002
Long Island Pine Barrens Society, Inc. v. Planning Board green nyappdiv · 1994	1	2002–2002
Gregg v. Scully green nyappdiv · 1985	1	2001–2001
Courtney v. Strack green nyappdiv · 1997	1	2001–2001
Dryden Mutual Insurance v. Harr green nyappdiv · 1998	1	2001–2001
Good Samaritan Hospital v. Axelrod green nyappdiv · 1989	1	2000–2000
B. Young v. GSL Enterprises, Inc. neutral nyappdiv · 1991	1	2000–2000
New York Telephone Co. v. Board of Assessors of Inc. Village of Shoreham neutral nyappdiv · 1991	1	2000–2000
Crystal Pond Homes, Inc. v. Prior green nyappdiv · 1999	1	2000–2000
Amsterdam Nursing Home Corp. v. Axelrod neutral nyappdiv · 1991	1	1997–1997
Sylcox Nursing Home & Health Related Facility v. Axelrod green nyappdiv · 1992	1	1997–1997
Sterling Estates, Inc. v. Board of Assessors green ny · 1985	1	1997–1997
Celestial Food Corp. of Coram, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority green nyappdiv · 1984	1	1996–1996
Clowry v. Town of Pawling green nyappdiv · 1994	1	1996–1996
Engert v. Phillips green nyappdiv · 1989	1	1993–1993
New York State Ass'n of Counties v. Axelrod green nyappdiv · 1989	1	1993–1993
Rattner v. Planning Commission of Village of Pleasantville green nyappdiv · 1989	1	1993–1993
People v. Blank green nyappdiv · 1982	1	1991–1991

Statutes the citing opinions construe

NY § N.Y. Civil Service Law § 75 (3) NY § N.Y. Municipal Home Rule Law § 10 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

CA 235 (1941–2026) TX 89 (1973–2025) NY 79 (1958–2026) PA 78 (1969–2026) IL 71 (1963–2025) CT 48 (1983–2026) NJ 39 (1952–2025) OH 36 (1990–2025) AZ 29 (1957–2025) MD 26 (1982–2020) MI 26 (1972–2026) AL 25 (1976–2025) IN 25 (1977–2019) ME 24 (1974–2024) AR 22 (1988–2025) MO 18 (1969–2025) WI 15 (1972–2026) AK 14 (1985–2023) NM 13 (1998–2026) UT 13 (1993–2020) CO 12 (1982–2012) FL 12 (1958–2022) DC 11 (1972–2010) WA 11 (1969–2016) TN 10 (1946–2020) MS 10 (1966–2021) MA 10 (1979–2014) DE 10 (1992–2025) SC 10 (1977–2023) MN 10 (1957–2007) KS 9 (1986–2021) NC 8 (2008–2020) RI 7 (1966–2017) WV 7 (1966–2026) IA 7 (1971–2016) NH 6 (1998–2018) HI 6 (2012–2025) GA 5 (1986–2017) WY 4 (1982–2020) OK 4 (1980–2005) VT 3 (1952–2001) ID 3 (1990–2023) SD 3 (1975–1987) LA 3 (1976–2024) NV 3 (1979–2021) NE 2 (1998–2017) OR 2 (1997–2019) ND 2 (2014–2024) VA 2 (2000–2010) MT 2 (2022–2024)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check