Simpson v. Wolansky, 38 N.Y.2d 391 (1975)

An administrative agency head, though empowered to overrule a hearing officer’s findings, cannot base a decision on evidence or information outside the official record when a hearing is required.

Summary

Carlisle Simpson, a ward aide at Letchworth Village, was charged with misconduct. The Director of Letchworth designated a hearing officer who found Simpson innocent. The Director, however, found Simpson guilty and terminated his employment, citing matters not in the hearing record. Simpson challenged this decision. The Court of Appeals held that while the Director could overrule the hearing officer, the decision had to be based solely on the evidence presented in the hearing record, ensuring fairness and the opportunity for meaningful review. The case emphasizes the importance of due process in administrative proceedings.

Facts

Carlisle Simpson, a permanent employee at Letchworth Village, a facility for the mentally retarded, was accused of having sexual intercourse with a resident on two occasions.

The Director of Letchworth, Wolansky, initiated disciplinary proceedings against Simpson.

A hearing was held, and the designated hearing officer recommended Simpson’s reinstatement, finding him innocent of the charges.

Director Wolansky rejected the hearing officer’s recommendation and terminated Simpson’s employment, stating he considered “every aspect of such a case even if it does not appear in a hearing transcript” and citing his efforts to eliminate resident abuse.

Procedural History

Simpson filed an Article 78 proceeding challenging the Director’s decision.

Special Term dismissed the proceeding, finding substantial evidence supported the Director’s decision.

The Appellate Division reversed, finding that the Director relied on matters outside the record and remanded for a new determination based solely on the record.

The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

Issue(s)

Whether an administrative agency head can base a disciplinary decision on evidence or information outside the official hearing record, even when the agency head has the power to overrule the hearing officer’s findings.

Holding

No, because it violates the fundamental right to a fair hearing and the principle that decisions should be based on evidence presented in the record, allowing for proper review and challenge.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court emphasized that while an agency head can overrule a hearing officer’s report, especially on issues of credibility, the decision must still be supported by substantial evidence within the hearing record. “As Director it is my duty to consider every aspect of such a case even if it does not appear in a hearing transcript.” The Court found that Wolansky acknowledged his reliance on extra-record information. The Court cited Matter of Newbrand v City of Yonkers, 285 NY 164, 179: “it is not proper for an administrative agency to base a decision of an adjudicatory nature, where there is a right to a hearing, upon evidence or information outside the record”. The Court explained that fundamental fairness requires that parties be “fully apprised of the proof to be considered, with the concomitant opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, inspect documents and offer evidence in rebuttal or explanation”. Findings of fact must be made to assure parties that decisions are based on record evidence, free of extralegal considerations, permitting informed challenges and judicial review. The Court distinguished this case from Matter of Gitlin v Hostetter, 27 NY2d 934, by explaining that while a hearing officer’s credibility determination is given weight, the agency head is still responsible for reviewing the evidence and making an independent finding based on the record.