Matter of Goldenstein v New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Public health—COVID-19 mask requirements for children in New York City childcare programs issued by the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH).
The Supreme Court, Richmond County declared the portion of DOHMH’s November 17, 2021 order requiring masks for children aged two and older at childcare programs to be arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable, and permanently enjoined its enforcement.
The Appellate Division dismissed the appeals as academic and vacated the Supreme Court’s April 1, 2022 and April 6, 2022 orders and judgments.
The DOHMH mandate had been rescinded, rendering the appeals moot; no exception to the mootness doctrine was claimed. Vacatur was warranted to prevent the unreviewable lower court decision from having precedential or collateral consequences, and because the lower court improperly conducted its own research and substituted its judgment instead of applying deferential rational-basis review to the administrative record under a CPLR article 78 proceeding [special proceeding to challenge administrative action or inaction].
Background
In response to COVID-19, the DOHMH Commissioner, Dave A. Choksi, issued a November 17, 2021 order requiring staff and children two years and older to wear face coverings in childcare programs, with exceptions based on activities and developmental needs. In March 2022, petitioners commenced a hybrid CPLR article 78 proceeding and declaratory judgment action challenging the portion of the order applicable to children. The Supreme Court relied on its own research into health risks and masking efficacy rather than the administrative record to deem the mandate for children arbitrary and capricious.
Lower Court Decision
On April 1, 2022, the Supreme Court declared the children’s masking requirement arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable. On April 6, 2022, it granted the petition and permanently enjoined enforcement of the November 17, 2021 mandate, basing its determination on its own factual conclusions about public health risks and the efficacy of masking for children.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division granted the motion to dismiss the appeals as academic because the mandate had been rescinded and no mootness exception was asserted. It vacated the lower court’s orders and judgments to prevent unreviewable decisions from producing legal consequences. The Court emphasized that in a CPLR article 78 review, the question is whether the agency action has a rational basis and is not arbitrary or capricious, that courts should not substitute their judgment for that of public health experts, and that review is confined to the administrative record. It held the Supreme Court erred by conducting its own research and supplanting the agency’s determinations.
Legal Significance
The decision reinforces the deferential standard applied to public health regulations under article 78 and clarifies that trial courts must confine review to the administrative record rather than undertake independent fact-finding in complex public health matters. It also underscores that once challenged mandates are rescinded, appeals are typically moot, and vacatur is appropriate to prevent unreviewable trial-level decisions from creating precedent.
Rescission of a public health mandate moots the appeal, and trial court orders declaring such mandates arbitrary will be vacated to avoid precedential effects; courts must apply rational-basis review to the administrative record and may not substitute their own public health judgments for the agency’s.