Fee Plan, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Conservation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fee Plan, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Conservation

118 A.D.2d 855, 500 N.Y.S.2d 344, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54711

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 31, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 118 A.D.2d 855 (Fee Plan, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Conservation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fee Plan, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Conservation, 118 A.D.2d 855, 500 N.Y.S.2d 344, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54711 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination and order of the respondent Henry G. Williams, the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, dated August 17, 1984, which, after a hearing, ordered that the petitioner submit a proposal for remedial action to repair and/or replace its wastewater treatment system and that the petitioner be assessed a civil penalty of $15,000, of which $10,000 would be suspended upon condition that it comply with the terms of the determination and order.

Determination and order confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, with costs.

A review of the record demonstrates that the hearing was fair and that the determination and order under review is supported by substantial evidence. The Administrative Law [856]*856Judge clearly had the power to limit the petitioner’s cross-examination of witnesses in order to avoid filling the record with irrelevant or unduly repetitious evidence (see, State Administrative Procedure Act § 306 [1]). As to the admission of a report prepared by one of the respondents’ employees which contained a hearsay statement made by an anonymous informant, it is well settled that the technical rules of evidence need not be adhered to at an administrative hearing (cf. Matter of Maxfield v Tofany, 34 AD2d 869). In any event, the Administrative Law Judge did not rely upon this statement in reaching his conclusions and therefore the outcome of the proceeding was not affected by this alleged error.

We do not find that the penalty assessed by the respondent commissioner was, under the circumstances, so disproportionate to the offenses as to shock one’s sense of fairness (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 233). Mangano, J. P., Brown, Weinstein and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

— Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination and order of the respondent Henry G. Williams, the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, dated August 17, 1984, which, after a hearing, ordered that the petitioner submit a proposal for remedial action to repair and/or replace its wastewater treatment system and that the petitioner be assessed a civil penalty of $15,000, of which $10,000 would be suspended upon condition that it comply with the terms of the determination and order.

Determination and order confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, with costs.

A review of the record demonstrates that the hearing was fair and that the determination and order under review is supported by substantial evidence. The Administrative Law [856]*856Judge clearly had the power to limit the petitioner’s cross-examination of witnesses in order to avoid filling the record with irrelevant or unduly repetitious evidence (see, State Administrative Procedure Act § 306 [1]). As to the admission of a report prepared by one of the respondents’ employees which contained a hearsay statement made by an anonymous informant, it is well settled that the technical rules of evidence need not be adhered to at an administrative hearing (cf. Matter of Maxfield v Tofany, 34 AD2d 869). In any event, the Administrative Law Judge did not rely upon this statement in reaching his conclusions and therefore the outcome of the proceeding was not affected by this alleged error.

We do not find that the penalty assessed by the respondent commissioner was, under the circumstances, so disproportionate to the offenses as to shock one’s sense of fairness (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 233). Mangano, J. P., Brown, Weinstein and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

118 A.D.2d 855, 500 N.Y.S.2d 344, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54711, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fee-plan-inc-v-department-of-environmental-conservation-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack