Matter of Eber Bros. Wine & Liquor Corp. v. New York State Liq. Auth., 46 N.Y.2d 582 (1979)

Prohibition is an extraordinary remedy and does not lie to interfere with proceedings before an administrative agency, like the State Division of Human Rights, when the agency has jurisdiction and the claim is merely of erroneous exercise of authority.

Summary

Eber Bros. sought to prohibit the State Division of Human Rights from proceeding with a complaint, arguing the Division failed to meet statutory deadlines. The Court of Appeals held that prohibition was inappropriate because the Division had jurisdiction over discrimination complaints, and the failure to meet deadlines, if true, was an error in exercising that authority, not an excess of jurisdiction. The proper remedy was administrative review followed by judicial review under Executive Law § 298. The court emphasized that prohibition is reserved for instances where an agency acts outside its jurisdiction, not when it makes errors within its jurisdiction.

Facts

Nancy Smith filed a complaint with the State Division of Human Rights against Eber Bros. Wine & Liquor Corp., alleging discrimination. Eber Bros. argued that the Division was precluded from proceeding with the complaint because it failed to adhere to the statutory timetable for processing such complaints. Eber Bros. then sought a writ of prohibition to prevent the Division from continuing the proceedings.

Procedural History

The Supreme Court initially granted a default judgment against the State Division of Human Rights, preventing it from proceeding with Smith’s complaint. The Appellate Division vacated the default judgment, finding excusable default and merit to Smith’s contention that the Division should be allowed to proceed. The Appellate Division also held that prohibition did not lie in this case. Eber Bros. appealed to the Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the Appellate Division abused its discretion in vacating the default judgment against the State Division of Human Rights.
2. Whether the remedy of prohibition lies to interfere with proceedings before the State Division of Human Rights based on the Division’s alleged failure to observe statutory deadlines.

Holding

1. No, because the Appellate Division did not abuse its discretion in vacating the default judgment, finding excusable default and merit to Smith’s claim.
2. No, because the Division had jurisdiction to investigate complaints of discrimination, and the alleged failure to meet statutory deadlines constitutes an erroneous exercise of authority, not an excess of jurisdiction.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals found no abuse of discretion in the Appellate Division’s decision to vacate the default judgment. The court then addressed the prohibition issue, stating that the employer’s claim of the Division failing to meet statutory deadlines, even if valid, was an erroneous exercise of authority, not an excess of jurisdiction. The court relied on Union Free School Dist. No. 6 of Towns of Islip & Smithtown v New York State Human Rights Appeal Bd., 35 NY2d 371, 381. The court emphasized that the Division had statutory jurisdiction to investigate discrimination complaints. The proper remedy for errors of law within that jurisdiction is administrative review, followed by judicial review under Executive Law § 298. The court stated that prohibition is an “ancient and just” writ reserved for instances where an entity acts outside its jurisdiction, citing Matter of Board of Educ. v State Div. of Human Rights, 38 AD2d 245, affd 33 NY2d 946 and La Rocca v Lane, 37 NY2d 575. The court declined to address the effect of the Division’s failure to adhere to the statutory timetable, given its conclusion that prohibition was not the appropriate remedy. The court emphasized the distinction between an agency acting outside its jurisdiction, which would warrant prohibition, and an agency making errors within its jurisdiction, which would not.