Featherstone v. Franco, 95 N.Y.2d 550 (2000)

Judicial review of administrative agency penalties is limited to whether the penalty shocks the judicial conscience, and courts cannot consider evidence of changed circumstances arising after the agency’s determination.

Summary

Phyllis Featherstone, a tenant in a New York City public housing project, had her tenancy terminated due to violations of the no-pet rule and her teenage son’s violent behavior. The Housing Authority found her son posed a danger to other residents. Featherstone challenged the termination in a CPLR article 78 proceeding, arguing the penalty was too harsh. The Court of Appeals affirmed the termination, holding that the Appellate Division lacked the authority to consider new evidence or exercise discretionary power to review the penalty unless it was so disproportionate as to shock the judicial conscience. The Court emphasized that judicial review is limited to the facts presented in the administrative record.

Facts

Phyllis Featherstone was a tenant in a low-income housing project. The New York City Housing Authority sought to terminate her tenancy because she kept a dog in violation of the no-pet rules and due to her son Jamar’s violent behavior. Evidence showed she falsely claimed to have gotten rid of the dog. A police officer testified that he responded to a call where Featherstone reported that Jamar threatened her with a knife and stabbed her dog in 1993. Featherstone had obtained an order of protection against Jamar.

Procedural History

The Housing Authority terminated Featherstone’s tenancy. Featherstone initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the decision. The Appellate Division confirmed the termination. The dissenting Justice would have remanded for reconsideration based on circumstances arising after the initial determination, citing Matter of Cheek v Christian. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

Issue(s)

Whether the Appellate Division has the discretionary authority to consider evidence submitted in support of the article 78 petition indicating a change in circumstances arising after the agency’s final determination and then to annul the sanction and remit the matter to the agency for reconsideration in light of those new circumstances.

Holding

No, because the Appellate Division lacks discretionary authority or interest of justice jurisdiction in reviewing the penalty imposed by the Authority; annulment and remittal would only be appropriate if the penalty violates the rigorous Pell standard (shocks the judicial conscience). Moreover, courts are confined to the facts and record adduced before the agency.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals held that judicial review under CPLR article 78 is limited to the questions identified by statute, including whether the penalty constitutes an abuse of discretion (CPLR 7803[3]). The Court clarified that the Appellate Division is subject to the same limited scope of review as the Court of Appeals: the sanction must be upheld unless it shocks the judicial conscience. Citing Matter of Pell v. Board of Educ., the Court emphasized that the Appellate Division does not have discretionary authority to review the penalty imposed. To consider evidence of circumstances after the Authority’s determination would violate the principle that judicial review is confined to the record before the agency. The court stated: “Judicial review of administrative determinations is confined to the ‘facts and record adduced before the agency’.” Because the administrative record contained substantial evidence establishing that Featherstone’s son was violent and represented a potential danger, the Authority did not abuse its discretion in terminating her tenancy. The court explicitly disapproved of Matter of Cheek v Christian and its progeny, stating they should not be followed to the extent they are inconsistent with these principles. The court emphasized the need to maintain the integrity of the administrative process by focusing the court’s review on the evidence that was before the agency when it made its determination.