Labor & Employment Law

Failure to follow an administrative precedent

In her Law of the Land blog, Patty Sobel (Albany) reviews a New York case that demonstrates one of the unwritten rules of administrative law.

Opening paragraph:

Although local zoning boards of appeal have broad discretion when considering applications for area variances, where the board fails to adhere to its own prior precedent and fails to indicate its reason for reaching a different result on essentially the same facts, the decision will not be upheld as it is considered arbitrary and capricious.

"Variance Denial Arbitrary Where Board Fails to Adhere to Its Own Prior Precedent". The government doesn't have to be perfectly consistent, but it must explain its decisions when making a significant change from precedent.

EMM

NYPPL comments: In Engel v Sobel, 161 AD2d 873, the Appellate Division indicated that while the Commissioner of Education could deviate from prior administrative precedent, such deviation must be adequately explained. The court said that "In the absence of any such rationale, the administrative decision must be reversed on the law even though substantial evidence supports it." Thus administrative precedents may be modified or ignored in a particular administrative proceeding provided (1) the reason for doing so is clearly indicated; (2) the reason for deciding not to apply the precedent is neither arbitrary nor capricious; and (3) there is substantial evidence to support the ultimate determination.

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on December 09, 2008 (boomark / email).