Annotation 2-30 - 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


§ 2-30 Interlocutory Review

Timeliness of Application

Pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, application for certification for an interlocutory appeal must be made within five days after the issuance of any interlocutory order or decision. Application made more than five days after the issuance of an order was untimely. Comm’n on Human Rights v. DiFiore Realty, LLC, OATH Index Nos. 2386/22 & 1732/23 (July 26, 2023) (motion made 29 days after decision); Comm’n on Human Rights v. Westbeth Corp. HDFC, Inc., OATH Index No. 1913/15, mem. dec. (Feb. 9, 2016) (motion made 49 days after order); Comm’n on Human Rights v. Coticelli, OATH Index No. 970/11 (Aug. 19, 2011), adopted, Comm’n Dec. & Order (Nov. 21, 2011) (motion made eight days after decision).

Application Denied

Motion for interlocutory review of decision denying respondents leave to file pre-trial motion to dismiss denied as untimely and unwarranted because ALJ concluded that the decision regarding when to permit respondents to raise their defense does not amount to an exceptional situation warranting certification for interlocutory review. Comm’n on Human Rights v. DiFiore Realty, LLC, OATH Index Nos. 2386/22 & 1732/23 (July 26, 2023).

Motion for interlocutory review of decision directing production of complainant’s mental health records denied as untimely and meritless. On the merits, ALJ concluded that the Commission is required to provide the requested mental health records because, under applicable New York law, the Commission waived the doctor-patient privilege by seeking emotional distress damages for complainant. These records may shed light on complainant’s credibility and whether there were other factors that caused her mental distress. Comm’n on Human Rights v. Westbeth Corp. HDFC, Inc., OATH Index No. 1913/15, mem. dec. (Feb. 9, 2016).

ALJ denied applications for certification of a question for interlocutory review and to stay administrative proceeding challenging ALJ’s order to change venue to accommodate the personal and familial obligations of a respondent. Comm’n on Human Rights v. Coticelli, OATH Index No. 970/11 (Aug. 19, 2011), adopted, Comm’n Dec. & Order (Nov. 21, 2011).

Application Granted

Over respondent’s objection, ALJ granted motion for interlocutory review of order directing Commission to provide HIPAA-compliant authorizations for the release of complainant’s medical records since 2008 directly to respondent. ALJ found no prejudice to respondent and determined that this was a recurring issue that was having a significant impact upon the adjudication process. The additional discovery disputes are causing delays of weeks or months in bringing the cases to trial or arriving at settlements. Respondents are also placed at a disadvantage by being obliged to spend additional legal fees to litigate these discovery issues. On interlocutory review, the Chair affirmed the ALJ’s order. Comm’n on Human Rights ex rel. Vincent v. Health & Hospitals Corp. (Woodhull Hospital Ctr.), OATH Index No. 1260/17, mem. dec. (May 4, 2017), adopted, Chair’s Order on Request for Interlocutory Review (Dec. 12, 2017).