Dengeles v. Young, 14 A.D.2d 833 (N.Y. 1961)
An administrative official may be held liable for damages resulting from willful and malicious acts, particularly when refusing to perform a ministerial duty after a court order compelling them to act.
Summary
This case addresses whether administrative officials can be held liable for damages resulting from the willful and malicious refusal to issue a building permit. The plaintiffs, Dengeles, sought a permit to erect a diner, which was initially denied despite the ordinance allowing restaurants in the area. Even after a court order compelling the issuance of the permit, the officials refused. The court held that the officials could be liable, as their actions were deemed malicious and not protected by immunity, especially after the court order removed any discretionary aspect of their duty. The dissent argued for upholding liability, citing precedent and policy reasons against unbridled administrative power.
Facts
The Dengeles sought a building permit to erect a diner in an area where the Town of Hempstead Building Ordinance permitted restaurants.
Despite the ordinance and previous approvals for similar diner applications, the respondents refused to issue the permit.
The Dengeles obtained a court order compelling the issuance of the permit.
The respondents continued to refuse to issue the permit even after the court order.
The plaintiffs alleged the refusal was willful and malicious.
Procedural History
The plaintiffs initially sought a court order compelling the issuance of the permit, which they obtained.
After the respondents continued to refuse, the plaintiffs filed a civil action seeking damages for the willful and malicious refusal to grant the permit.
The lower courts likely dismissed the action, leading to this appeal.
The Appellate Division’s decision in Matter of Dengeles v. Young (3 A.D.2d 758) found that the inspector “willfully refused to grant the permit, and misled and hindered” the appellants.
Issue(s)
Whether administrative officials are immune from liability for damages resulting from the willful and malicious refusal to perform a ministerial duty, specifically issuing a building permit, even after a court order compelling them to do so.
Holding
Yes, because the alleged acts of the officials, particularly after the court order, exceeded the scope of any discretionary immunity and could be considered malicious and tortious conduct for which damages are recoverable.
Court’s Reasoning
The court reasoned that while immunity is extended to officials making decisions common to judicial and legislative organs, this does not excuse the intentional misuse of power by administrative officers.
The court distinguished between discretionary and ministerial acts. The initial determination of whether a diner qualified as a “restaurant” under the ordinance might have involved some discretion. However, given the prior approvals for similar diner applications, this question was effectively settled.
After the court order compelling issuance, the duty became purely ministerial. The respondents’ refusal to comply could be viewed as a malicious and tortious act.
The court cited East Riv. Gas-Light Co. v. Donnelly, stating that if officials determine a party is entitled to a contract but then refuse to enter into it, a court may have cognizance over the matter, even in favor of a private suitor.
The dissenting opinion emphasized that most jurisdictions hold officials liable for malicious or dishonest acts, transforming otherwise privileged actions into actionable ones.
The dissent argued that once the court order was issued, any element of judgment or discretion was removed, and the only proper course of action was to obey the order. Refusal at this stage could not be considered privileged.
The dissent quoted the Appellate Division’s finding in Matter of Dengeles v. Young that the inspector “willfully refused to grant the permit, and misled and hindered” the appellants.
The dissent highlighted the danger of placing unbridled powers in the hands of administrative officials, arguing it puts rights at the mercy of unscrupulous officials. “For the law to sanction and in fact assist in the willful and malicious use of administrative power to the damage of an individual contributes nothing to increased efficiency in the administrative agencies.”