record of the administrative hearing in New York

2017This is thus not a case in which respondent has failed to provide a complete record of the administrative proceedings (see CPLR 7804 [e]), thereby precluding meaningful review of the determination and warranting a granting of the petition and an annulment of the determination (see generally Matter of Tolliver v Fischer, 125 AD3d 1023, 1023-1024 , lv denied 25 NY3d 908 ; Matter of Farrell v New York State Off. of the Attorney Gen., 108 AD3d 801 , 801- 802). -2- 571 CA 16-00385 Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the court did not err in concluding that the Hearing Officer was not biased agains

2017This is thus not a case in which respondent has failed to provide a complete record of the administrative proceedings (see CPLR 7804 [e]), thereby precluding meaningful review of the determination and warranting a granting of the petition and an annulment of the determination (see generally Matter of Tolliver v Fischer, 125 AD3d 1023, 1023-1024 [2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 908 [2015]; Matter of Farrell v New York State Off. of the Attorney Gen., 108 AD3d 801 , 801-802 [2013]).

2021In any event, "[a]bsent a showing that substantial prejudice resulted from the delay, the regulatory time limits are construed to be directory rather than mandatory" ( Matter of Sierra v Annucci , 145 AD3d 1496 , 1497 [4th Dept 2016] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of McMillian v Lempke , 149 AD3d 1492, 1493 [4th Dept 2017], appeal dismissed 30 NY3d 930 [2017]), and any violation of 7 NYCRR 251-5.1 (a) would not, under the circumstances of this case, require reversal.

2017This is thus not a case in which respondent has failed to provide a complete record of the administrative proceedings (see CPLR 7804 [e]), thereby precluding meaningful review of the determination and warranting a granting of the petition and an annulment of the determination (see generally Matter of Tolliver v Fischer, 125 AD3d 1023, 1023-1024 , lv denied 25 NY3d 908 ; Matter of Farrell v New York State Off. of the Attorney Gen., 108 AD3d 801 , 801- 802). -2- 571 CA 16-00385 Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the court did not err in concluding that the Hearing Officer was not biased agains

2017This is thus not a case in which respondent has failed to provide a complete record of the administrative proceedings (see CPLR 7804 [e]), thereby precluding meaningful review of the determination and warranting a granting of the petition and an annulment of the determination (see generally Matter of Tolliver v Fischer, 125 AD3d 1023, 1023-1024 , lv denied 25 NY3d 908 ; Matter of Farrell v New York State Off. of the Attorney Gen., 108 AD3d 801 , 801- 802). -2- 571 CA 16-00385 Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the court did not err in concluding that the Hearing Officer was not biased agains

2017This is thus not a case in which respondent has failed to provide a complete record of the administrative proceedings (see CPLR 7804 [e]), thereby precluding meaningful review of the determination and warranting a granting of the petition and an annulment of the determination (see generally Matter of Tolliver v Fischer, 125 AD3d 1023, 1023-1024 , lv denied 25 NY3d 908 ; Matter of Farrell v New York State Off. of the Attorney Gen., 108 AD3d 801 , 801- 802). -2- 571 CA 16-00385 Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the court did not err in concluding that the Hearing Officer was not biased agains

2003There was also evidence contained in the record of the administrative hearing that there were at least two residents at the 428 North Main Street address who were dependent adults, in that they were incapable of independent living and required assistance with the management of their medications and their money [FN3] . [*5] The Petitioners are empowered pursuant to Section 63(12) of the Executive Law to bring a special proceeding for injunctive relief whenever a person engages in persistent "fraud or illegality, including the violation of a statute or local law or regulation ( State of New York

2003There was also evidence contained in the record of the administrative hearing that there were at least two residents at the 428 North Main Street address who were dependent adults, in that they were incapable of independent living and required assistance with the management of their medications and their money [FN3] . [*5] The Petitioners are empowered pursuant to Section 63(12) of the Executive Law to bring a special proceeding for injunctive relief whenever a person engages in persistent "fraud or illegality, including the violation of a statute or local law or regulation ( State of New York

1993Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court for the purpose of an evidentiary hearing to determine “whether the wetlands regulations, considered together with the denial of the [application] would work an unconstitutional taking of [the] petitioner’s property” (Matter of Smith v Williams, 111 AD2d 855 ; Matter of Haines v Flacke, 104 AD2d 26 , supra; see also, Spears v Berle, 48 NY2d 254 ).

1993Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court for the purpose of an evidentiary hearing to determine “whether the wetlands regulations, considered together with the denial of the [application] would work an unconstitutional taking of [the] petitioner’s property” (Matter of Smith v Williams, 111 AD2d 855 ; Matter of Haines v Flacke, 104 AD2d 26 , supra; see also, Spears v Berle, 48 NY2d 254 ).

1991Since the respondent’s determination was supported by substantial evidence, that determination may not be disturbed (see, Matter of Lahey v Kelly, 71 NY2d 135, 140 ; 300 Gramatan Ave.

1989Such misrepresentation about repairs performed constitutes substantial evidence that the petitioner has engaged in a fraudulent and deceptive practice in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 398-e (1) (g) (see, Matter of Little Reb Auto Corp. v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 93 AD2d 821 ).