Edelman v. Axelrod, 74 N.Y.2d 833 (1989)

To establish hearing officer bias in an administrative proceeding, there must be support in the record for the bias and proof that the outcome flowed from the alleged bias.

Summary

This case addresses the standard for establishing hearing officer bias in administrative proceedings. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order, reinstating the respondent’s determination. The Court held that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence of bias on the part of the hearing officer, as the unsworn memorandum alleging the hearing officer was the respondent’s employee was inadequate. Additionally, the petitioner’s claim regarding a violation of Civil Service Law § 72 was not raised at the agency level and therefore could not provide a basis for relief.

Facts

The petitioner, Edelman, challenged an administrative determination made by the respondent, Axelrod. The specific nature of the underlying administrative action is not detailed in the memorandum opinion, but the challenge centered on the alleged bias of the hearing officer who presided over the administrative hearing. The petitioner asserted that the hearing officer was biased because he was allegedly an employee of the respondent, Axelrod.

Procedural History

The case began at the administrative level. The respondent made a determination adverse to the petitioner. The petitioner then appealed the determination, likely through an Article 78 proceeding, arguing that the hearing officer was biased. The Appellate Division reversed the administrative determination. The Court of Appeals then reversed the Appellate Division’s order and reinstated the respondent’s original determination.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the petitioner presented sufficient evidence to establish hearing officer bias as a matter of fact, warranting the reversal of the administrative determination.

2. Whether the petitioner’s claim regarding a violation of Civil Service Law § 72, raised for the first time on appeal, provides a basis for relief.

Holding

1. No, because the petitioner’s only evidence of bias was an unsworn memorandum asserting that the hearing officer was allegedly the respondent’s employee, which is insufficient to establish bias as a matter of fact.

2. No, because the claim was not raised or relied upon at the agency level.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals applied the established standard for proving hearing officer bias, stating: “To establish Hearing Officer bias as a matter of fact, there must be support in the record for the bias and proof that the outcome flowed from the alleged bias.” The Court found that the petitioner’s evidence, an unsworn memorandum, failed to meet this standard. The court emphasized that there was no sworn testimony or other reliable evidence to substantiate the claim that the hearing officer was an employee of the respondent or that any alleged bias affected the outcome of the hearing. The Court cited Matter of Warder v Board of Regents, 53 NY2d 186, 197 as precedent. Regarding the Civil Service Law § 72 claim, the court invoked the well-established principle that arguments not raised at the agency level are waived on appeal. The Court cited Matter of Klapak v Blum, 65 NY2d 670, 672 and Matter of Seitelman v Lavine, 36 NY2d 165, 170 to support this proposition. This ensures that agencies have the first opportunity to address and resolve issues within their purview. The court cited People ex rel. Packwood v Riley, 232 NY 283, 286 stating an administrative hearing must be conducted by an unbiased Hearing Officer.