Under Article 78, how are the agency's factual findings reviewed?

Under Article 78, how are the agency's factual findings reviewed?

• A. The court completely substitutes its own findings
• B. The court never defers to the agency
• C. The court defers to the agency if the record contains credible evidence supporting the findings (correct)
• D. The court uses a strict "clear error" standard for all findings

Answer: (C)

Under Article 78, the court reviews factual findings in a deferential way. It doesn’t reweigh every piece of evidence or replace the agency’s conclusions whenever it disagrees; instead, if the record contains credible evidence supporting the agency’s factual findings, the court defers to those findings and affirms them. The court’s job is to ensure the agency acted within its authority and that its findings are supported by the record; only if the record lacks credible evidence to support the agency’s conclusions would the court consider altering or substituting the findings. That’s why this option is correct: when credible evidence in the record supports the agency’s factual findings, the court defers to those findings rather than substituting its own. The other approaches don’t fit Article 78 review—deferring never, using a strict clear‑error standard for all findings, or completely substituting the court’s own findings—are not how this process works.

Under Article 78, the court reviews factual findings in a deferential way. It doesn’t reweigh every piece of evidence or replace the agency’s conclusions whenever it disagrees; instead, if the record contains credible evidence supporting the agency’s factual findings, the court defers to those findings and affirms them. The court’s job is to ensure the agency acted within its authority and that its findings are supported by the record; only if the record lacks credible evidence to support the agency’s conclusions would the court consider altering or substituting the findings.

That’s why this option is correct: when credible evidence in the record supports the agency’s factual findings, the court defers to those findings rather than substituting its own. The other approaches don’t fit Article 78 review—deferring never, using a strict clear‑error standard for all findings, or completely substituting the court’s own findings—are not how this process works.