Administrative Review Request Form with Lawyer

The form must include specific, detailed information for legal validity under state rules. Omitting any essential item may result in immediate dismissal or a formal request for correction, causing delays. New York administrative procedure demands specificity so the reviewing body can fully understand the claim's basis, the timeline, and the exact relief sought.

Required components typically include:

• Full name and address of the petitioner: Establishes the identity of the challenging party.
• Identity of the opposing party: The exact name of the agency/official that issued the contested order or failed to act.
• The review tribunal: Specifies the receiving body (e.g., OATH or the State Division of Human Rights).
• Detailed explanation of the disputed action/inaction: A clear narrative of the decision and the legal/factual basis for the objection.
• Date the petitioner became aware of the action: Critical for determining compliance with the statutory limitations period.
• A clear statement of relief sought and justification: The specific remedy requested (e.g., reversal) and why the petitioner is legally entitled to it.
• Notification of available remedies: Confirmation of whether the agency informed the petitioner of administrative remedies.

If multiple agencies are involved, a complete copy of the form must be provided for each challenged party.

When an organization is the petitioner, the representative’s full legal name, official title, and exact role must be clearly disclosed. Similarly, if a third party—such as an attorney, guardian, or authorized agent—files the form on behalf of the original petitioner, their complete name, detailed contact information, and documented legal relationship to the petitioner must be explicitly included. This formal disclosure ensures the reviewing body knows who is legally authorized to communicate and act on the petitioner’s behalf throughout the review process.

All official submissions must bear a valid signature by the petitioner or their legally authorized agent. An unsigned submission is invalid and will be immediately returned or officially dismissed without consideration of its merits. If required information is initially missing, the administrative body may issue a formal correction notice, allowing a brief, specified timeframe for remedy. Failure to adequately respond to this correction notice or to provide the missing information within the deadline can lead to an outright and final rejection of the request for review.

The completed form can be officially submitted either directly to the agency that issued the contested decision or to the designated appropriate administrative hearing body. Examples include OATH or a specialized administrative board. It is critically important to verify the correct filing address and the required number of copies, as procedural errors during submission frequently cause delays or rejection.

Upon formal filing and acceptance, the administrative body is legally mandated to forward a copy to the involved agency. The agency must then issue a formal response, typically within 10 calendar days, unless the request is clearly outside their jurisdiction or the petitioner lacks standing. If the review was initiated by a third-party representative, the agency is obligated to inform the original, affected party. If the agency acknowledges an error or finds the petition justified, it may voluntarily withdraw, amend, or correct the contested decision and must provide written notification of this action to both the petitioner and the review tribunal.

Administrative reviews in New York provide a streamlined, cost-effective alternative to judicial litigation. A significant benefit is the avoidance of substantial court filing fees and reliance on procedures designed to be easily navigated.

Additional benefits of the administrative review include:

• Faster resolution: Most administrative reviews are typically concluded within 60–90 days.
• Possibility of internal agency correction: Provides an opportunity for the agency to correct its own error before a full hearing.
• Expert decision-making: Decisions are often rendered by specialized Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) or experts with deep knowledge in the relevant regulatory field.

Before officially filing, it is crucial to re-ensure that every field and factual basis has been documented accurately and completely. This final review prevents avoidable delays or rejections.

Failure to comply with these critical components may result in a formal notice to amend or an outright, final dismissal. If uncertain about any part, consulting the specific agency's administrative hearing guide or the procedural rules of the reviewing body (like OATH) is strongly recommended.