A quick route to 'arbitrary and capricious'

In her Law of the Land blog, Patty Salkin (Albany) reviews a New York zoning case in "Board’s Failure to Follow its Own Precedent Results in Reversal".  The building department said the builder didn't meet requirements, then it did, then it didn't, with a rezoning in the middle of the process.

On appeal, both the trial court and the appeals court concluded that the Board of Standards and Appeals acted in an arbitrary and capricious fashion when they failed to follow their prior precedent and failed to indicate any reason for reaching a different result on essentially the same facts.  Furthermore, the Court found that the petitioner established that it was entitled to an extension under the Zoning Resolution and that it had acquired vested rights.

Once an agency approves a regulated entity's action, it can't claim "Oops, we goofed" without statutory or regulatory authority to do so.  Even with such authority, once the rights "vest", it's a whole new ball game.  This could be a fun exam or discussion scenario.  EMM