Big Apple Food Vendors’ Ass’n v. Street Vendor Review Panel, 89 N.Y.2d 407 (1996)
When a legislative body delegates rule-making authority to an administrative agency, the delegation is valid if it provides an adequate objective, intelligible standard to guide the agency’s action, even if it involves a fact-finding component.
Summary
This case concerns the validity of a rule adopted by the New York City Street Vendor Review Panel restricting street vending in certain locations due to congestion. The Court of Appeals reversed the lower courts, holding that the City Council’s delegation of rule-making authority to the Panel was constitutional because it provided a sufficient standard – whether a street is “regularly too congested” to permit vending safely. The court emphasized that the Panel followed proper procedures in adopting the rule and that the petitioners failed to demonstrate the rule was unreasonable or unsupported by evidence.
Facts
The Street Vendor Review Panel, an executive agency created by Local Law 14 of 1995, adopted a rule extending existing street vending restrictions and creating new ones. The Panel received petitions to modify the existing restricted vending list. The Panel published a Notice of Proposed Rules, announcing a public hearing. After the hearing, the Panel adopted a final rule that maintained existing restrictions on 33 streets and created new restrictions on 26 additional streets. Petitioners, mobile food vendors, challenged the rule.
Procedural History
Petitioners initiated a CPLR Article 78 proceeding challenging the rule’s validity. The Supreme Court granted the petition in part, annulling the portion of the rule adding 26 new streets and directing the Panel to establish “objective quantitative criteria.” The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals granted the Panel leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the delegation of legislative rule-making authority to the Street Vendor Review Panel by the City Council was unconstitutionally vague and indefinite because it lacked objective quantitative standards, thereby granting the agency unbridled discretion.
Holding
No, because the statutory delegation itself provides an adequate objective, intelligible standard for administrative action by way of legislative rule making, namely, whether street vending operations at a given street location would endanger public safety because