New York Supreme Court

Procedure, by its terms, applies to all intake facilities and all applicants for shelter
(R. 21-22, 149).
The third category of cases cited by DHS involve challenges to the
implementation of policies and procedures that had already gone through the
rulemaking process. See Matter of Medical Soc’y v. Serio, 100 N.Y.2d 854, 868
(2003) (“Here, the actual ‘rule’ – that late filing must be excused upon a showing
of ‘clear and reasonable justification’ for the delay – has been duly promulgated by
the Superintendent and adopted and published in compliance with the Constitution
and State Administrative Procedure Act.”); Matter of New York City Transit Auth.
v. New York State Dep’t of Labor, 88 N.Y.2d 225, 228 (1996) (assessment of
penalties for violations of duly promulgated regulations); Matter of Roman
Catholic Diocese v. New York State Dep’t of Health, 109 A.D.2d 140, 147 (3d
Dep’t 1985) (Levine, J., dissenting) (citing 10 N.Y.C.R.R. § 709.1, the regulation
governing certificate of need determinations, which list the factors that agency
determination “shall include, but not be limited to”), rev’d 66 N.Y.2d 948 (1985)
(adopting reasoning of dissent); Matter of Lue-Shing v. Travis, 12 A.D.3d 802, 803
(3d Dep’t 2004) (“[P]etitioner appeals, arguing only that the manner in which the
Board applies the 9 N.Y.C.R.R. 8001.3 guidelines violates” the state constitutional
requirement that a rule be filed with the secretary of state).
26