What is the standard of review in a CPLR Article 78 proceeding challenging an agency action?

• A. De novo review with no deference.
• B. Arbitrary and capricious, or abuse of discretion, or not in accordance with law; factual findings must be supported by substantial evidence.
• C. Strictly limited to statutory interpretation.
• D. Only review of procedural due process.

Answer: (B)

When you challenge an agency action under CPLR Article 78, the court reviews with deference to the agency rather than reweighing every fact on its own. The standard asks whether the agency’s action was arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse of discretion, or not in accordance with law; and if the agency made factual findings, those findings must be supported by substantial evidence in the record. This balances allowing the agency to use its expertise with a check against irrational decisions or legal errors. If the agency’s reasoning has a rational basis and the record supports its factual findings, the court will uphold the action; otherwise it may set it aside or require a new determination. This is not a de novo review, nor is it limited only to statutory interpretation or to procedural due process—the focus includes rationality, legality, and substantial evidentiary support for factual determinations.