The question in this case is whether the State Office of Victim Services permissibly adopted regulations limiting the availability of attorneys’ fees in connection with applications for victim financial assistance.
Article 22 of the Executive Law authorizes the Office to provide financial assistance to victims of crime. Among other things, the statute permits compensation for “reasonable attorneys’ fees” for representation before the Office or during judicial review of an Office decision. In 2016, the Office implemented regulations that limited attorneys’ fees to legal assistance provided during (i) a successful administrative review of an initial decision by the Office or (ii) judicial review of a final decision by the Office. The Office limited attorneys’ fees to these particular stages of the claims process because, in its view, the other stages involved only ministerial tasks for which attorneys’ fees would not be reasonable.
Plaintiffs submitted applications for financial assistance with the aid of counsel. One plaintiff unsuccessfully challenged the Office’s initial determination in an administrative review; the other did not seek administrative review at all. Neither was entitled to attorneys’ fees under the Office’s 2016 regulation, and so plaintiffs challenged the regulation in this hybrid declaratory judgment action and CPLR article 78 proceeding.
Supreme Court upheld the regulations, but the Appellate Division reversed and declared them invalid. The regulations exceeded the Office’s authority, the court held, because the statute required the Office consider requests for attorneys’ fees for assistance at all stages of the claims process on a case-by-case basis. The statute did not support the Office’s categorical judgment that fees for assistance at the early stages of a claim could never be reasonable.
The Court of Appeals granted plaintiffs leave to appeal.
Return to the case page for Matter of Juarez v. N.Y.S. Office of Victim Services.