No Self-Review: Appellate Division Bars Administrative Law Judges from Issuing Final Determinations on Their Own Recommended Decisions in Justice Center Abuse Proceedings (Matter of Doe v. New York State Justice Center, 2025)

Introduction

Matter of Doe v. New York State Justice Center for the Protection of People with Special Needs (2025 NY Slip Op 03325) arose from an incident at Montefiore Nyack Hospital’s Behavioral Health Unit. John Doe, a security supervisor, was accused of “category two physical abuse” after restraining an agitated psychiatric patient. The Justice Center substantiated the abuse report; an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) conducted a hearing, issued a recommended decision, then—critically—issued the final determination herself. Doe commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging both the evidentiary basis and the procedure by which the decision was rendered.

The Appellate Division, Second Department, annulled the determination, holding that: (1) under due-process principles an ALJ may not review and adopt her own recommendation; and (2) Doe’s single push to the patient’s face constituted a reasonable emergency intervention, not reckless “physical abuse.”

Summary of the Judgment

The court granted Doe’s article 78 petition.
The portion of the substantiated abuse report alleging category two physical abuse was ordered amended and sealed.
The court found insufficient evidence of reckless conduct and ruled the restraint a “reasonable emergency intervention.”
The court held that the ALJ’s self-review violated procedural due process; an ALJ may not sit in appellate review of her own fact-finding.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

Matter of Anonymous v. Molik, 32 NY3d 30 (2018) – sets preponderance standard for Justice Center hearings.
Matter of Enigbonjaye v. NYS Justice Ctr., 224 AD3d 752 (2d Dept 2024) – articulates “substantial evidence” review for article 78 challenges.
Matter of Donnelly v. State of N.Y. Justice Ctr., 189 AD3d 1039 (2d Dept 2020) – defines “substantial evidence” as proof a reasonable mind would accept.
Matter of Lowcher v. NYC Teachers’ Retirement Sys., 54 NY2d 373 (1981) – prohibits decision-makers from reviewing their own determinations; cornerstone of “no self-review.”
Matter of Pattison v. Coffey, 91 AD2d 613 (2d Dept 1982) – reaffirms Lowcher’s prohibition in administrative settings.

The court wove these cases together: Molik and its progeny inform the burden of proof; Enigbonjaye and Donnelly define judicial review; Lowcher and Pattison supply the non-delegable due-process rule that an official cannot be both finder of fact and appellate reviewer.

2. Legal Reasoning

Evidentiary Analysis
• “Category two physical abuse” under Social Services Law §493(4)(b) requires reckless conduct “seriously endangering” the recipient.
• The court parsed the record: after medication, the patient “repeatedly and violently” struggled; Doe placed a hand on the patient’s face once to stop him from lunging. The ALJ herself concluded Doe caused no injury.
• Without a reckless state of mind or injury, the push was held a permissible “reasonable emergency intervention” under §488(1)(a).
Procedural Due Process
• 14 NYCRR 700.13(a) mandates that an ALJ’s recommended decision go to the Justice Center Executive Director (ED) for separate review or to a designee.
• Here, the same ALJ issued both the recommendation (April 11, 2019) and the final determination (May 1, 2019).
• No reliable documentation showed the ED’s independent review or lawful delegation.
• Citing Lowcher, the court held that “due process will not allow an administrative decision-maker to sit in review upon his or her own decisions.” The defect is structural and cannot be cured post-hoc.

3. Impact of the Decision

Structural Reform for the Justice Center – The Justice Center must separate decisional tiers: ALJs may recommend, but the Executive Director or a different qualified designee must issue the final determination, accompanied by clear written delegation and review records.
Clarifies “Reasonable Emergency Intervention” – Security and clinical staff in OMH-licensed facilities obtain firmer guidance: a brief, proportionate use of force during a volatile incident is not reckless abuse.
Article 78 Litigation Blueprint – Practitioners now have a recent precedent for challenging Justice Center determinations that lack proper delegation or that misapply the recklessness component of category two abuse.
Broader Administrative Law – The opinion reinforces Lowcher’s no-self-review principle, signaling to other New York agencies that internal shortcuts risk annulment even where judicial economy might tempt a court to reach the merits.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Category Two Physical Abuse (§493(4)(b)) – Mid-level severity. Requires an act that “seriously endangers” a recipient; involves recklessness but not necessarily actual injury. Sanction: listing on the Staff Exclusion List for five years.
Preponderance of the Evidence – The Justice Center’s burden at the hearing: evidence showing the alleged abuse was more likely than not.
Substantial Evidence (CPLR 7803[4]) – The judicial review standard: “such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate.” More deferential than “preponderance,” yet still requires a rational foundation.
Reasonable Emergency Intervention – A statutory safe-harbor permitting proportionate force when immediately necessary to protect anyone’s safety. Not deemed “abuse.”
No-Self-Review Rule – An administrative adjudicator cannot be the appellate reviewer of his or her own decision, because impartiality and an independent check are constitutionally required.

Conclusion

The Second Department’s decision in Doe accomplishes two things of lasting importance. Substantively, it narrows the reach of “category two physical abuse,” emphasizing the necessity of reckless conduct and distinguishing permissible emergency restraints. Procedurally, it establishes a bright-line rule that an ALJ employed by the Justice Center cannot convert a recommended decision into a final determination without intermediate, independent review. In doing so, the court safeguards due process, reaffirms the integrity of administrative adjudication, and provides clear operational guidance for hospitals, custodial staff, and the Justice Center alike.