Khan v. New York State Department of Health
N.Y.
Citation analytics
How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this case
Most recently cited by10
- 2026Matter of McRobbie v. Martuscello N.Y. App. Div.
- 2026Duane v. New York City Hous. Auth. N.Y. App. Div.
- 2026Matter of Quiles v. Ledbetter N.Y. App. Div.
- 2025Matter of Atta v. Director of Nutritional Servs. N.Y. App. Div.
- 2025Matter of Cho v. New York State Dept. of Health, Bd. of Professional Med. Conduct N.Y. App. Div.
- 2025Matter of Tsevilsky v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal N.Y. App. Div.
- 2025Matter of Hassan v. New York City Civ. Serv. Commn. N.Y. App. Div.
- 2025Matter of Marks v. City of New York N.Y. App. Div.
- 2025Matter of Albany-Schoharie-Schenectady-Saratoga Bd. of Coop. Educ. Servs. v. Rosa N.Y. App. Div.
- 2025Matter of Retter v. City of New York N.Y. App. Div.
Cites 2 cases
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
In the Matter of Muhammad Azam Khan, Respondent, v New York State Department of Health et al., Appellants.
Attorneys
- APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
- Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, Albany (Robert H. Easton and Caitlin J. Halligan of counsel), for appellants.
- Mauro Goldberg & Lilling L. L. P., Great Neck (Katherine Herr Solomon of counsel), for respondent.
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division, insofar as appealed from, should be reversed, with costs, and the matter remitted to that court for review of the sanction imposed and any other issues not considered in view of the disposition of that court.
The Appellate Division annulled appellant New York State Department of Health’s determination that petitioner’s conduct violated Education Law § 6530 (18) and (29) by reaching an unpreserved issue “in the interest of justice.” This was error. Judicial review of administrative determinations pursuant to CPLR article 78 is limited to questions of law (see, Matter of Featherstone, 95 NY2d 550, 554; CPLR 7803). Unpreserved issues are not issues of law. Accordingly, the Appellate Division had no discretionary authority or interest of justice jurisdiction in reviewing the agency’s determination of guilt below (see, Matter of Kelly v Safir, 96 NY2d 32, 38, rearg denied 96 NY2d 834).
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Smith, Levine, Ciparick, Wesley, Rosenblatt and Graffeo concur.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order, insofar as appealed from, reversed, with costs, and matter remitted to the Appellate Division, Third Department, for further proceedings in accordance with the memorandum herein.