New York Supreme Court

assignment of numerical values to a patient’s condition required “the application of
professional medical judgment.” Id. at 656; see id. at 657 (noting that “in a case
closely on point, it was held that department standards setting forth the admission
procedures to state mental hospitals are ‘rules’ which must be filed with the
Secretary of State” (citing Whiting v. Marine Midland Bank – Western, 80 Misc.
2d 871 (Sup. Ct. Cattaraugus County 1975))).
And in Sound Distributing Corp. v. New York State Liquor Authority, 144
Misc. 2d 1 (Sup. Ct. Bronx County 1989), the court held that a resolution
delegating authority to a licensing board “which apparently exercises … discretion
to grant or deny such a permit,” id. at 3, “is obviously a ‘rule’ covered by
[SAPA],” id. at 6. The court stated that “[c]learly the creation of an inferior
tribunal to which apparently all licensing discretion of the agency is granted
establishes a course of conduct,” and is therefore a “rule.” Id. at 6 (citing inter alia
People v. Cull, 10 N.Y.2d at 126 and Matter of Jones v. Smith, 64 N.Y.2d at 1005-
06). “The inclusion of internal management matters in a rule which must be filed
does not make the rest of the rule exempt from publication.” Sound Distributing
Corp., 144 Misc. 2d at 6; see Matter of J.D. Posillico, Inc. v. Dep’t of Transp., 160
A.D.2d 1113 (3d Dep’t 1990) (holding that review procedures which required
“clear and convincing proof” that a contract bidder made an unintentional mistake
or that loss of profits would cause “irreparable financial damage” were subject to
21