Annotation 1-21 - OATH

Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings

Independent and Impartial Administrative Law Court


Chapter I - Subchapter C

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


§1-21 Designation of OATH.

Letter from the Commissioner of the Department of Correction designating OATH’s Chief Administrative Law Judge “or such Administrative Law Judges as he/she may assign” to conduct hearings under the Civil Service Law constitutes a proper delegation of authority. The delegation is broad and places no limitation on the Chief Judge’s choice of judges. Dep’t of Correction v. M.A., OATH Index No. 3073/23 (Sept. 28, 2023), adopted, Comm’r Dec. (Oct. 24, 2023); Dep’t of Correction v. Auguste, OATH Index No. 2770/08 (Apr. 17, 2009).

There is no requirement that OATH’s Chief Judge issue a designation letter to the ALJ assigned to each hearing. Such a requirement, which has no basis in the law, makes no sense and would be impracticable to implement. The judges at OATH are assigned randomly to try cases referred under the Civil Service Law, and may be reassigned due to conflicts in scheduling, vacation or other absence, anticipated or unanticipated. To require thousands or tens of thousands of such letters to cover all disciplinary cases since the inception of OATH in 1979, and to amend them each time there is a scheduling change, would be absurd. Dep’t of Correction v. Auguste, OATH Index No. 2770/08 (Apr. 17, 2009); Dep’t of Correction v. M.A., OATH Index No. 3073/23 (Sept. 28, 2023), adopted, Comm’r Dec. (Oct. 24, 2023).