From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Utica Cheese, Inc. v. Barber

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
May 6, 1980
49 N.Y.2d 1028 (N.Y. 1980)

Summary

In Matter of Utica Cheese v Barber (49 N.Y.2d 1028), the Court of Appeals inferentially held 90 days to be "within reasonable time", on the facts of that case, for a commissioner to reach a decision under subdivision 1 of section 301 A.P.A. of the State Administrative Procedure Act.

Summary of this case from Matter Cortlandt v. Axelrod

Opinion

Argued April 29, 1980

Decided May 6, 1980

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department, LEONARD A. WEISS, J.

Thomas G. Conway and Joan A. Kehoe for appellants.

Arnold W. Proskin for respondent.



MEMORANDUM.

In this article 78 proceeding petitioner seeks to compel the Commissioner of the Department of Agriculture and Markets to act on its milk dealer license application, which has now been pending for some 16 months. Under subdivision 1 of section 301 of the State Administrative Procedure Act, the commissioner is required to reach his decision "within reasonable time" (see, also, State Administrative Procedure Act, § 102, subd 3). Though the statute does not define this period with specificity, we would have to deem it elapsed in this case save for the commissioner's advice as to the unusual nature of the matters he has been compelled to investigate in aid of his ultimate determination. But, as appears from the pertinent facts and circumstances revealed in the record in this proceeding and fairly summarized in the memorandum at the Appellate Division, the commissioner is unable to provide a better estimate of when, if ever, he will be able to ascertain the relevance and availability of the further information he seeks other than that it will be at some unknown time in the future. Fairness to the applicant therefore requires that a hearing be held and a determination rendered promptly. To that end, the order of the Appellate Division is modified to direct that these steps be accomplished no later than 90 days from the date of this decision and, as so modified, affirmed, with costs.

Chief Judge COOKE and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and MEYER concur.

Order modified, with costs to petitioner, in accordance with the memorandum herein and, as so modified, affirmed.


Summaries of

Matter of Utica Cheese, Inc. v. Barber

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
May 6, 1980
49 N.Y.2d 1028 (N.Y. 1980)

In Matter of Utica Cheese v Barber (49 N.Y.2d 1028), the Court of Appeals inferentially held 90 days to be "within reasonable time", on the facts of that case, for a commissioner to reach a decision under subdivision 1 of section 301 A.P.A. of the State Administrative Procedure Act.

Summary of this case from Matter Cortlandt v. Axelrod

In Matter of Utica Cheese v Barber (49 N.Y.2d 1028, 1030) the Court of Appeals, while discussing the meaning of the language "within reasonable time" of subdivision 1 of section 301 A.P.A. of the State Administrative Procedure Act, said: "Though the statute does not define this period with specificity we would have to deem it elapsed in this case save for the commissioner's advice as to the unusual nature of the matters he has been compelled to investigate in aid of his ultimate determination."

Summary of this case from Maxwell v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles
Case details for

Matter of Utica Cheese, Inc. v. Barber

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of UTICA CHEESE, INC., Respondent, v. J. ROGER BARBER, as…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: May 6, 1980

Citations

49 N.Y.2d 1028 (N.Y. 1980)
429 N.Y.S.2d 405
406 N.E.2d 1342

Citing Cases

Matter Hamptons Hosp v. Moore

No one asserts that the present proceeding was one in the nature of prohibition; there is no contention that…

Pepin v. NYC Dep't of Educ.

Such a procedure in turn requires at least a response to a request for the certificate. Gonkjur Assoc. v.…