Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany v. New York State Department of Health, 66 N.Y.2d 948 (1985)
Only a fixed, general principle applied by an administrative agency without regard to other facts and circumstances relevant to the regulatory scheme constitutes a rule or regulation requiring filing with the Department of State.
Summary
This case addresses whether a guideline used by the Department of Health (DOH) in assessing applications constituted an unfiled rule or regulation. The Court of Appeals held that the DOH’s 50% guideline for reviewing applications did not constitute a rule requiring filing with the Department of State, as it was not a fixed principle applied without considering other relevant facts and circumstances. The court reversed the Appellate Division’s order and dismissed the petition challenging the guideline.
Facts
The Department of Health (DOH) used a 50% guideline when evaluating applications. Petitioners challenged this guideline, arguing it was an unfiled rule or regulation that should have been filed with the Department of State as required by the New York Constitution, article IV, § 8.
Procedural History
The Appellate Division initially ruled in favor of the petitioners. However, the Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order and dismissed the petition.
Issue(s)
Whether the 50% guideline employed by the Department of Health in passing on applications constitutes a rule or regulation required by NY Constitution, article IV, § 8 to be filed in the office of the Department of State.
Holding
No, because the 50% guideline employed by the Department of Health was not a fixed, general principle applied without regard to other facts and circumstances relevant to the regulatory scheme of the statute it administers.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals agreed with the dissenting Justice at the Appellate Division, who argued that only a fixed, general principle applied by an administrative agency without regard to other facts and circumstances relevant to the regulatory scheme of the statute it administers constitutes a rule or regulation requiring filing with the Department of State. The court emphasized that the 50% guideline was not applied as such a rule. This means the DOH considered other factors beyond the 50% threshold when making decisions on applications. The court, therefore, did not need to address the constitutional arguments presented. The key distinction is between a rigid, universally applied rule versus a flexible guideline used in conjunction with other factors. The court implicitly acknowledged the need for agencies to have some flexibility in applying their expertise without being unduly burdened by formal rulemaking requirements for every internal guideline. As the court stated, “only a fixed, general principle to be applied by an administrative agency without regard to other facts and circumstances relevant to the regulatory scheme of the statute it administers constitutes a rule or regulation required by NY Constitution, article IV, § 8 to be filed in the office of the Department of State.” This decision provides clarity on the distinction between a binding rule and a flexible guideline within administrative law.