New York Law Review

Matter of Emunim v. Department of Environmental Protection, 17 N.Y.3d 1001 (2011): Requirement to Allow Answer in Article 78 Proceedings

Published by

The New York Law Review

in

Matter of Emunim v. Department of Environmental Protection of the City of New York, 17 N.Y.3d 1001 (2011)

In a CPLR Article 78 proceeding, it is an error for the Supreme Court to grant a petition without first affording the respondent an opportunity to answer.

Summary

Emunim, a religious corporation, commenced an Article 78 proceeding seeking to annul the Department of Environmental Protection’s (DEP) denial of a full exemption from water and sewer charges. The Supreme Court granted the petition without allowing the DEP to file an answer. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the Supreme Court erred by not allowing the DEP to answer, citing CPLR 7804(f) and prior case law. The matter was remitted to the Supreme Court to allow the DEP to submit an answer and for further proceedings based on the pleadings.

Facts

Emunim, a religious corporation, operated a church and school in Manhattan. They sought a full exemption from water and sewer charges under relevant New York State and City laws. The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) denied the exemption. Emunim then initiated a CPLR Article 78 proceeding to challenge the DEP’s decision.

Procedural History

Emunim filed an Article 78 petition in Supreme Court. The DEP made a pre-answer motion to dismiss the proceeding. While the respondents no longer disputed the denial of their pre-answer motion to dismiss, the Supreme Court proceeded to rule on the merits of the petition without allowing the DEP to submit an answer. The Supreme Court then granted Emunim’s petition. The DEP appealed this decision. The Appellate Division order was appealed to the Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether the Supreme Court erred in granting the petition in an Article 78 proceeding without first affording the respondent an opportunity to submit an answer, after the denial of a pre-answer motion to dismiss.

Holding

Yes, because CPLR 7804(f) requires that a respondent be given an opportunity to answer before the court can rule on the merits of the petition.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals held that the Supreme Court’s decision to grant the petition without allowing the DEP to answer was a procedural error. The court explicitly cited CPLR 7804(f), which governs the procedure in Article 78 proceedings. CPLR 7804(f) states that the respondent may raise an objection in point of law in the answer or by motion to dismiss. If the motion is denied, the court shall allow the respondent to answer. The Court also cited Matter of Nassau BOCES Cent. Council of Teachers v Board of Coop. Educ. Servs. of Nassau County, 63 NY2d 100, 102-104 (1984), as precedent. The Court’s decision emphasizes the importance of affording all parties a fair opportunity to be heard and to present their case fully. The Court of Appeals stated: “Supreme Court erred in granting the petition without first affording respondents an opportunity to answer (see CLPR 7804 [f]; Matter of Nassau BOCES Cent. Council of Teachers v Board of Coop. Educ. Servs. of Nassau County, 63 NY2d 100, 102-104 [1984]). Accordingly, this case must be remitted to Supreme Court to allow respondents to submit an answer and for further proceedings on the pleadings.” This demonstrates a strict adherence to procedural rules to ensure fairness and due process.

More ARTICLES