Annotation 1-49 - OATH

Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings

Independent and Impartial Administrative Law Court


Chapter I - Subchapter D

Chapter I - Subchapter A
Chapter I - Subchapter B
Chapter I - Subchapter C
Chapter I - Subchapter D
Chapter II - Subchapter A
Chapter II - Subchapter B Reserved
Chapter II - Subchapter C
Chapter II - Subchapter D
Chapter II - Subchapter E

Chapter I - Subchapter A

Chapter I - Subchapter B

Chapter I - Subchapter C

Chapter I - Subchapter D

Chapter II - Subchapter A

Chapter II - Subchapter B Reserved

Chapter II - Subchapter C

Chapter II - Subchapter D

Chapter II - Subchapter E


§1-49 Public Access to Proceedings

Closure of Courtroom

Application that respondent’s wife and a friend be permitted to observe the undercover witness’ testimony was denied where divulging the witness’ identity would be tantamount to placing him in jeopardy and would compromise ongoing police investigations. Under paragraph (a) of this section, all OATH hearings are open unless legally recognized grounds exist for closure. This rule was interpreted in light of section 1-04, which gives the administrative law judge discretion to waive or modify trial rules as may be appropriate in a particular case to promote the just and fair adjudication of cases. Dep’t of Correction v. Lowndes, OATH Index No. 1662/99 (July 29, 1999).

Publication of Decisions, Redactions

Request to Withhold Publication

Request to ban publication of OATH decision on the ground that results of a disciplinary proceeding are confidential under section 50-a of the Civil Rights Law denied. Section 50-a does not apply to OATH decisions. As an independent ground for denying the request, ALJ also found that banning publication of the decision would violate the public’s right of access to OATH proceedings. Dep’t of Correction v. Johnson, OATH Index No. 1663/19, mem. dec. (Sept. 12, 2019); Dep’t of Correction v. Victor, OATH Index No. 388/15 (Apr. 2, 2015), adopted, Comm’r Dec. (June 4, 2015), aff’d, NYC Civ. Serv. Comm’n Case No. 2015-0794 (Aug. 20, 2015).

Basis for Redaction

Sensitive Medical Information

Respondent’s name redacted where decision contains sensitive medical information. Dep’t of Sanitation v. Anonymous, OATH Index No. 525/24 (Sept. 9, 2024), adopted, Comm’r Dec. (Oct. 4, 2024); Comm’n on Human Rights v. M. B., OATH Index No. 2195/24 (July 26, 2024), adopted, Comm’r Dec. (Sept. 6, 2024); Comm’n on Human Rights v. Anonymous, OATH Index No. 2194/24 (July 1, 2024), adopted, Comm’r Dec. (Sept. 6, 2024); Dep’t of Social Services (Human Resources Admin.) v. Anonymous, OATH Index No. 1815/24 (July 10, 2024); Dep’t of Correction v. E.B., OATH Index No. 1879/24 (June 21, 2024), adopted, Comm’r Dec. (Aug. 9, 2024); Fire Dep’t v. Anonymous, OATH Index No. 1785/24 (June 13, 2024); Police Dep’t v. R.G., OATH Index No. 2286/24, mem. dec. (Feb. 27, 2024); Dep’t of Correction v. D. Q., OATH Index No. 324/24 (Dec. 11, 2023); Taxi & Limousine Comm’n v. M. R., OATH Index No. 1255/24 (Nov. 29, 2023), adopted, Comm’r Dec. (Dec. 13, 2023); Dep’t of Social Services (Human Resources Admin.) v. T.B., OATH Index No. 1868/23 (Oct. 19, 2023); Dep’t of Social Services (Human Resources Admin.) v. Anonymous, OATH Index No. 3242/23 (Oct. 6, 2023); Dep’t of Correction v. Anonymous, OATH Index No. 896/22 (May 3, 2022), adopted, Comm’r Dec. (July 26, 2022).

Person in Custody

Where no purpose would be served by discussing any details of the detainee’s private health information and in consideration of the detainee’s privacy, ALJ declined to include speculative information about detainee’s health in the Report and Recommendation. Dep’t of Correction v. Zapata, OATH Index No. 1234/24 (Mar. 19, 2024).

In a disciplinary proceeding where a correction officer was charged with engaging in sexual acts with four persons in custody, ALJ granted petitioner’s request to withhold the names of the four complainants and a witness who testified at trial from publication in the decision and the trial transcript. Dep’t of Correction v. Clay, OATH Index No. 3023/23 (Nov. 27, 2023), adopted, Comm’r Dec. (Feb. 1, 2024).

Where disciplinary charges involved a rape allegation, the names of the two persons in custody involved were redacted. Dep’t of Correction v. Kitt, OATH Index No. 1829/23 (Aug. 7, 2023), adopted, Comm’r Dec. (Sept. 25, 2023).

Names of persons in custody omitted from decision because of their mental health history. Dep’t of Correction v. Hill, OATH Index Nos. 861/21 & 1136/21 (Jan. 23, 2023), adopted, Comm’r Dec. (Apr. 13, 2023).

Immigration Status

Pursuant to Mayoral Executive Order No. 41, respondent’s name redacted from decision that contained a discussion of his immigration status. Taxi & Limousine Comm’n v. F.B., OATH Index No. 3086/23 (May 22, 2023), adopted, Comm’r Dec. (May 24, 2023).

Public Assistance Recipient

Name of public assistance recipient redacted to protect his privacy rights, consistent with applicable law. Dep’t of Homeless Services v. Smith, OATH Index No. 518/14 (Apr. 25, 2014).

Minors

Names of minors redacted from decision to protect their privacy. Dep’t of Youth and Community Development v. Thomas, OATH Index No. 1995/18 (June 7, 2019), modified, Comm’r Dec. (Aug. 8. 2019), appeal dismissed, NYC Civ. Serv. Comm’n Case No. 2019-0900 (Nov. 25, 2019).

Respondent’s name redacted from decision because it included discussion of his minor daughter’s health issues. Dep’t of Sanitation v. D.L., OATH Index No. 2434/22 (Dec. 16, 2022).

Domestic Violence

Respondent’s name redacted pursuant to Mayoral Executive Order No. 41 due to testimony relating to her domestic violence victim status, absent corroborating documentation. Although prior cases may have involved both testimony and corroborating documentation, there is no such requirement. Dep’t of Social Services (Human Resources Admin.) v. Y. M., OATH Index No. 571/22 (Jan. 11, 2023), modified on penalty, Comm’r Dec. (Feb. 28, 2023), aff’d, NYC Civ. Serv. Comm’n Case No. 2023-0114 (June 14, 2023).

At ALJ’s direction, name of respondent’s girlfriend was omitted from testimony, transcript, and decision because of the legal protections for victims of domestic violence and no purpose would be served by publishing her identity. Taxi & Limousine Comm’n v. Aghedo, OATH Index No. 784/23 (Oct. 26, 2022), adopted, Comm’r Dec. (Nov. 9, 2022).

Name of respondent’s withheld from publication for privacy reasons because the decision discusses her status as an alleged victim of domestic violence. Dep’t of Correction v. Cerrato, OATH Index No. 2021/22 (May 31, 2022), adopted, Comm’r Dec. (July 6, 2022).

Respondent’s full name withheld from publication for privacy reasons because the decision discusses her medical records as well as her status as a victim of domestic violence. Dep’t of Information Technology and Telecommunications v. L. C., OATH Index No. 1699/21 (Jan. 11, 2022), adopted, Comm’r Dec. (July 15, 2022).

Victim of Sexual Harassment

Complainant’s name withheld from publication for privacy reasons because the decision discussed his status as an alleged victim of sexual harassment. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth. v. Vella, OATH Index No. 227/22 (Feb. 10, 2022), modified on penalty, Pres. Dec. (Mar. 22, 2022).

Criminal Matter Sealed

In summary suspension cases, respondent’s name redacted from decision after criminal charges were dismissed and sealed to afford the protection from public disclosure under applicable law. Taxi & Limousine Comm’n v. Anonymous, OATH Index No. 2088/24 (Feb. 21, 2024), adopted, Comm’r Dec. (Feb. 23, 2024); Taxi & Limousine Comm’n v. Anonymous, OATH Index No. 1978/24 (Feb. 1, 2024); Taxi & Limousine Comm’n v. Anonymous, OATH Index No. 2270/23 (Mar. 30, 2023), adopted, Comm’r Dec. (Apr. 13, 2023); Taxi & Limousine Comm’n v. Anonymous, OATH Index No. 884/22 (Dec. 15, 2021), adopted, Comm’r Dec. (Dec. 29, 2021).

Family Court Proceeding

Respondent’s name withheld from publication to protect his privacy because the decision discusses a Family Court proceeding. Taxi & Limousine Comm’n v. Anonymous, OATH Index No. 782/24 (Oct. 11, 2023), adopted, Comm’r Dec. (Oct. 12, 2023).

Respondent’s name redacted from decision because she submitted into evidence documents relating to Family Court proceedings that took place when she was a minor. Office of the City Clerk v. M. D., OATH Index No. 2620/15 (Sept. 29, 2015).

Exclusion of Information Sua Sponte

ALJ withheld respondent’s name from publication sua sponte because the decision contained sensitive medical information. Taxi & Limousine Comm’n v. Anonymous, OATH Index No. 1594/24 (Dec. 18, 2023), adopted, Comm’r Dec. (Jan. 3, 2024).

Respondent’s name redacted sua sponte because of discussion of their medical records. Health & Hospitals Corp. (Jacobi Medical Ctr.) v. L.V., OATH Index No. 1667/20 (July 29, 2020); Dep’t of Correction v. N. C., OATH Index No. 1907/18 (July 20, 2018), adopted, Comm’r Dec. (Sept. 11, 2018), aff’d, NYC Civ. Serv. Comm'n Case No. 2018-0884 (Dec. 10, 2018).

Pursuant to subsection (d) of this section, name of applicant challenging denial of domestic partnership registration is withheld from publication in accordance with local law and City Clerk’s rule which provides for confidentiality of domestic partnership records. Office of City Clerk v. Anonymous, OATH Index No. 1157/11 (Mar. 7, 2011), adopted, Clerk’s Dec. (Oct. 28, 2011).

Where case involved discussion of respondent’s mental health, ALJ sua sponte redacted respondent’s name to protect his privacy rights under subsection (d) of this section. Human Resources Admin. v. Anonymous, OATH Index No. 1242/10 (May 4, 2010), modified on penalty, Admin/Comm’r Determination (June 16, 2010), aff’d, NYC Civ. Serv. Comm’n Item No. CD 11-17-A (Apr. 29, 2011).

Request to Remove Information

ALJ granted respondent’s request to omit her name from a decision pursuant to subsection (d) of this rule due to the personal and sensitive nature of her testimony, in particular, testimony about personal health issues and health issues of her daughter. Dep’t of Sanitation v. Anonymous, OATH Index No. 181/11 (Dec. 9, 2010).

ALJ rejected a joint request by the parties to seal the entire record of a disciplinary action brought against an EMS lieutenant charged with posting private and confidential patient information on his Facebook page. ALJ did not identify the patient in her decision, and she redacted the patient’s identity from the record (transcripts and exhibits) should it be sought for publication or filed in court. Lieutenant’s late request to seal his counseling records made by licensed social workers was denied because, regardless of the privacy interests he may have in such records, it was he who placed his health at issue by raising it as a defense or in mitigation of penalty and the request was made after he had submitted the documents into the record at his public trial. Fire Dep’t v. Palleschi, OATH Index No. 192/11 (Dec. 20, 2010).

Request for redaction denied

ALJ denied respondent’s unopposed request to redact her name from the decision, based on testimony about her medical information, as no medical information was discussed in the decision. Dep’t of Environmental Protection v. Layman, OATH Index No. 2096/23 (Apr. 12, 2024).

In a summary suspension matter, ALJ denied respondent’s motion to have any mention of the arrest charge redacted from petitioner’s exhibits pursuant to section 160.50 of the Criminal Procedure Law. ALJ found that the cited section of law was inapplicable because the District Attorney’s decision to prosecute respondent under charges different from those upon which respondent was arrested is not considered a “termination in favor of” respondent as defined in section 160.50(5) of the Criminal Procedure Law. Taxi & Limousine Comm’n v. Anonymous, OATH Index No. 2088/24 (Feb. 21, 2024), adopted, Comm’r Dec. (Feb. 23, 2024).

Request to redact respondent’s name based on allegations that a minor child was the victim of offenses, including sexual abuse, allegedly committed by respondent. However, because the complainant’s name was not included in the decision, ALJ found that there was no legally cognizable reason for redacting respondent’s name. Taxi & Limousine Comm’n v. Gordon, OATH Index No. 3357/23 (June 29, 2023), adopted, Comm’r Dec. (July 5, 2023).

ALJ denied motion to redact respondent’s name from decision based on a prior complaint that respondent filed against one of petitioner’s witnesses. Health & Hospitals Corp. (Jacobi Medical Ctr.) v. Clay, OATH Index No. 2181/22 (Sept. 22, 2022).

Motion to redact respondent’s name from decision based on pending criminal charges denied, as the Criminal Procedure Law does not require sealing and respondent failed to articulate a legally cognizable basis for redaction. Taxi & Limousine Comm’n v. Hassan, OATH Index No. 2425/22 (June 3, 2022), adopted, Comm’r Dec. (June 21, 2022); Taxi & Limousine Comm’n v. Zatout, OATH Index No.186/22 (Aug. 13, 2021), adopted, Comm’r Dec. (Aug. 31, 2021); Taxi & Limousine Comm’n v. Camara, OATH Index No. 1015/21 (Jan. 12, 2021), adopted, Comm’r Dec. (Jan. 14, 2021).

Denying redaction request where there was no discussion of sensitive diagnoses, as in previous decisions. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth. v. Frans-Nanton, OATH Index No. 2624/18 (July 5, 2019), adopted in part, rejected in part, Pres. Dec. (Nov. 13, 2019).

Although OATH has withheld names where there is discussion of respondent’s sensitive medical information, redaction requests have been denied where a respondent places their private health information in issue. Fire Dep’t v. Gala, OATH Index No. 2772/18 (Apr. 16, 2019); Human Resources Admin. v. Holman, OATH Index No. 223/17 (Dec. 22, 2016), aff’d, NYC Civ. Serv. Comm’n Index No. 2017-0161 (May 12, 2017); Human Resources Admin. v. Charleman, OATH Index No. 1653/16 (Aug. 5, 2016).