Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 New York opinions name it 2 courts 2008–2026 3 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Porter v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewalgreen2 sentences2026Although a remand may be appropriate where the agency has made the type of substantial error that constitutes an "irregularity in vital matters" (Matter of Porter v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 51 AD3d 417 , [2008]), no remand is appropriate where the agency is "merely seeking a second chance to reach a different determination on the merits" (Matter of Pantelidis v New York City Bd. ofStds. & Appeals, 43 AD3d 314 , [2007], affd 10 NY3d 846 , [2008] [internal quotation marks omitted]). 2011Although, as noted above, a remand may be appropriate where the agency has made the type of substantial error that constitutes an “irregularity in vital matters” (Matter of Porter v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 51 AD3d 417, 418 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 703 [2008] [internal quotation marks omitted]), a final administrative determination cannot be reopened to give a party an opportunity to make a new argument based on the existing administrative record (Matter of Pantelidis v New York City Bd. of Stds. & Appeals, 43 AD3d 314, 315 [2007], affd 10 NY3d 846 [2008] [no remand i | 2 | 4 |
Pantelidis v. New York City Board of Standards & Appealsgreen2 sentences2026Although a remand may be appropriate where the agency has made the type of substantial error that constitutes an "irregularity in vital matters" (Matter of Porter v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 51 AD3d 417 , [2008]), no remand is appropriate where the agency is "merely seeking a second chance to reach a different determination on the merits" (Matter of Pantelidis v New York City Bd. ofStds. & Appeals, 43 AD3d 314 , [2007], affd 10 NY3d 846 , [2008] [internal quotation marks omitted]). 2011Although, as noted above, a remand may be appropriate where the agency has made the type of substantial error that constitutes an “irregularity in vital matters” (Matter of Porter v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 51 AD3d 417, 418 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 703 [2008] [internal quotation marks omitted]), a final administrative determination cannot be reopened to give a party an opportunity to make a new argument based on the existing administrative record (Matter of Pantelidis v New York City Bd. of Stds. & Appeals, 43 AD3d 314, 315 [2007], affd 10 NY3d 846 [2008] [no remand i | 2 | 3 |
Gersten v. 56 7th Avenue LLCgreen2 sentences2014LLC, 88 AD3d 189, 204 [1st Dept 2011] [“remand may be appropriate where the agency has made the type of substantial error that constitutes an ‘irregularity in vital matters’ ”]). 2014LLC, 88 AD3d 189, 204 [1st Dept 2011] [“remand may be appropriate where the agency has made the type of substantial error that constitutes an ‘irregularity in vital matters’ ”]). | 2 | 2 |
Peckham v. Calogerogreen1 sentence2025A remand to the agency, which typically occurs "where the agency has made the type of substantial error that constitutes an irregularity in vital matters" ( Matter of Peckham v Calogero , 54 AD3d 27, 28 [1st Dept 2008], affd 12 NY3d 424 [2009] [internal quotation marks omitted]), would not have been appropriate in this case. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In the Matter of Pantelidis v. New York City Board of Standards and Appeals
green
2 sentences2026Although a remand may be appropriate where the agency has made the type of substantial error that constitutes an "irregularity in vital matters" (Matter of Porter v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 51 AD3d 417 , [2008]), no remand is appropriate where the agency is "merely seeking a second chance to reach a different determination on the merits" (Matter of Pantelidis v New York City Bd. ofStds. & Appeals, 43 AD3d 314 , [2007], affd 10 NY3d 846 , [2008] [internal quotation marks omitted]). 2011Although, as noted above, a remand may be appropriate where the agency has made the type of substantial error that constitutes an “irregularity in vital matters” (Matter of Porter v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 51 AD3d 417, 418 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 703 [2008] [internal quotation marks omitted]), a final administrative determination cannot be reopened to give a party an opportunity to make a new argument based on the existing administrative record (Matter of Pantelidis v New York City Bd. of Stds. & Appeals, 43 AD3d 314, 315 [2007], affd 10 NY3d 846 [2008] [no remand i | 3 | 2008–2026 |
People v. Pardo
green
2 sentences2024Matter of Porter v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 51 A.D.3d 417 (1st Dep't 2008), Iv. denied 11 N.Y.3d 703 (2008). 2011Although, as noted above, a remand may be appropriate where the agency has made the type of substantial error that constitutes an “irregularity in vital matters” (Matter of Porter v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 51 AD3d 417, 418 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 703 [2008] [internal quotation marks omitted]), a final administrative determination cannot be reopened to give a party an opportunity to make a new argument based on the existing administrative record (Matter of Pantelidis v New York City Bd. of Stds. & Appeals, 43 AD3d 314, 315 [2007], affd 10 NY3d 846 [2008] [no remand i | 2 | 2011–2024 |
Hakim v. Division of Housing & Community Renewal
green
1 sentence2026The court may also remand a matter to the agency where fact-finding or technical analysis is needed for a proper adjudication (Matter of Hakim v Division of Hous. & Community Renewal, 273 AD2d 3 , [2000]). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Peckham v. Calogero
green
1 sentence2025A remand to the agency, which typically occurs "where the agency has made the type of substantial error that constitutes an irregularity in vital matters" ( Matter of Peckham v Calogero , 54 AD3d 27, 28 [1st Dept 2008], affd 12 NY3d 424 [2009] [internal quotation marks omitted]), would not have been appropriate in this case. | 1 | 2025–2025 |