Annotation 2-26 - OATH

Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings

Independent and Impartial Administrative Law Court


Chapter II - 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


§ 2-26 Withdrawal or Dismissal of the Petition

Commission properly withdrew charges after respondent moved for summary judgment. Comm’n on Human Rights ex rel. Watson, et al. & Fair Housing Justice Center, Inc. v. PPC Residential, LLC, Parkchester Preservation Management Company LLC, & Parkchester Preservation Company LP, et al., OATH Index Nos. 2245/19 & 2246/19, mem. dec. (Mar. 17, 2023).

Respondent Department of Education filed a motion seeking a finding that service upon current and former employees was precluded by the statute of limitations. Although motions addressed to the sufficiency of the petition are to be reserved until closing statements, ALJ decided the issue pre-trial because the case would in any event proceed against the Department and resolving the issue was required to facilitate the conduct of discovery. Comm’n on Human Rights ex rel. Hollinger v. Dep’t of Education, OATH Index No. 486/05, mem. dec. (Jan. 26, 2005).

After granting Commission’s motion to withdraw the case pending settlement, ALJ granted Commission’s motion to restore the case to the calendar based on respondent’s failure to comply with provisions of the settlement. In the absence of any opposition from or denial by respondent, ALJ concluded that restoring the matter to the trial calendar was warranted. Comm’n on Human Rights v. G.P.C. Realty Corp., OATH Index No. 228/04, mem. dec. (Oct. 7, 2004).

Commission’s unilateral withdrawal of pending case without prejudice not permitted. Administrative law judge found that this section, which applies only to Human Rights cases, incorporated by reference section 1-32(f), which requires permission from an administrative law judge before a matter can be withdrawn where the withdrawal is not with prejudice or otherwise a final disposition of the case. Sound reasons of calendar control support an interpretation of the rule which requires permission of an administrative law judge before a case can be withdrawn without prejudice. Blueweiss v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., OATH Index No. 852/99, mem. dec. (Mar. 29, 1999).