| Matter of Morrow v County of Nassau |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 02580 [105 AD3d 961] |
| April 17, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Cynthia Morrow,Appellant, v County of Nassau, Respondent. |
—[*1] John Ciampoli, County Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Jackie L. Gross of counsel), forrespondent.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Countyof Nassau Department of Assessment dated July 7, 2011, terminating the petitioner'semployment, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County(Parga, J.), entered March 21, 2012, which denied the petition and dismissed theproceeding.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The agency determination under review was not made after a quasi-judicialevidentiary hearing. Thus, we review the determination under the standard set forth inCPLR 7803 (3), and consider only whether the determination was made in violation oflawful procedure, was affected by an error of law, was arbitrary and capricious, or was anabuse of discretion (see Ward vCity of Long Beach, 20 NY3d 1042 [2013]; Matter of Halperin v City of New Rochelle, 24 AD3d 768,770 [2005]). Under this standard, courts "examine whether the action taken by theagency has a rational basis" and will overturn that action only "where it is 'taken withoutsound basis in reason' or 'regard to the facts' " (Matter of Wooley v New York State Dept. of CorrectionalServs., 15 NY3d 275, 280 [2010], quoting Matter of Peckham v Calogero, 12 NY3d 424, 431 [2009];see Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns ofScarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222, 232 [1974]), orwhere it is "arbitrary and capricious" (Matter of Deerpark Farms, LLC v Agricultural & FarmlandProtection Bd. of Orange County, 70 AD3d 1037, 1038 [2010]). Moreover,"courts must defer to an administrative agency's rational interpretation of its ownregulations in its area of expertise" (Matter of Peckham v Calogero, 12 NY3d at431).
The petitioner failed to meet her burden of demonstrating that the determinationmade by the County of Nassau Department of Assessment terminating her employmentlacked a rational basis or was arbitrary and capricious. The petitioner's contention that theagency's determination violated the doctrine of legislative equivalency (see Matter ofTorre v County of Nassau, 86 NY2d 421, 426 [1995]) is without merit, as herposition was not abolished.[*2]
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly deniedthe petition and dismissed the proceeding. Skelos, J.P., Leventhal, Austin and Sgroi, JJ.,concur.