Who has standing to bring a judicial review of an administrative decision?

• A. Persons who have suffered an unfavorable administrative decision and those with a stake in the outcome, even if injury is less direct
• B. Only parties with direct financial loss
• C. Only government entities
• D. No one can seek judicial review

Answer: (A)

In this area, the key idea is standing to seek judicial review of an administrative decision. For an Article 78 petition, a person must be “aggrieved” by the agency’s action. That obligation is interpreted broadly: you don’t need a direct, out‑of‑pocket financial loss to have standing. If the agency decision adversely affects your rights or interests, or you have a real stake in the outcome, you can challenge it. So someone who has suffered an unfavorable decision, or anyone who has a meaningful stake in how the decision will play out—even if the injury is less direct—has standing to seek review.

That makes the best answer: standing includes those harmed by the decision and those with a stake in the outcome, even if the injury is not purely financial. The other options are too restrictive or plainly incorrect: limiting standing to direct financial loss ignores valid, nonfinancial interests; restricting standing to government entities would exclude private challengers; and saying no one can seek review ignores the availability of judicial review in administrative law.