Matter of Pelliccia v. Haas, 79 N.Y.2d 865 (1992)
Judicial review of an administrative agency’s determination is limited to whether the determination is supported by substantial evidence in the record.
Summary
This case addresses the scope of judicial review of a determination made by the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA). The Court of Appeals held that the Appellate Division properly limited its review to determining whether the DCA’s finding that Pelliccia operated an unlicensed cabaret was supported by substantial evidence. Because substantial evidence existed, the Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s judgment and remitted the case for further proceedings regarding the imposed fine, which the City conceded was excessive.
Facts
Pelliccia operated a restaurant that was found by the Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) to be operating as an unlicensed cabaret in violation of section B32-297.0 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York. The DCA imposed a fine. Pelliccia challenged the DCA’s determination.
Procedural History
The case was initially heard by the Department of Consumer Affairs, which found Pelliccia in violation. The Appellate Division reviewed the DCA’s determination. The Court of Appeals then reviewed the Appellate Division’s judgment. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division and remitted the case to the Supreme Court for remand to the DCA for further proceedings regarding the fine.
Issue(s)
Whether the Appellate Division applied the correct standard of review in assessing the Department of Consumer Affairs’ determination that Pelliccia operated an unlicensed cabaret.
Holding
Yes, because the court’s review is limited to whether there was substantial evidence in the record to support the Department of Consumer Affairs’ determination.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals held that the Appellate Division correctly construed section B32-297.0 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York. The court stated, “In this context, the court’s review is limited to whether there was substantial evidence in the record to support the Department of Consumer Affairs’ determination that petitioner operated an unlicensed cabaret.” Citing 300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, the court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in such cases. Because there was substantial evidence supporting the DCA’s determination, the Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s judgment. The court also noted that the restaurant had ceased operations and the relevant Administrative Code provision had been changed, deeming the City’s pursuit of the appeal “unfortunate” and warranting denial of costs. The court focused solely on the established principle of administrative law concerning the limited scope of judicial review of agency determinations when substantial evidence exists to support the agency’s finding.