BenchNOTES - November 2024

Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings

Independent and Impartial Administrative Law Court


BenchNOTES Newsletter


BenchNOTES Newsletter

Sign up to receive OATH BenchNOTES in your email inbox.

View the BenchNOTES Archives

OATH News

Job opportunities at OATH: OATH regularly posts employment opportunities on the NYC Jobs portal and on its website. View current openings.

Trials Division

Featured Agency Decision

Civil penalty imposed.

The Conflicts of Interest Board adopted ALJ Seon Jeong Lee’s recommendation to impose a $6,500 civil penalty on a former project manager who operated a private ticket-selling business while employed by a city agency. Conflicts of Interest Bd. v. Mombrun, OATH Index No. 2424/23 (July 8, 2024), adopted, COIB Case No. 2019-732 (Oct. 29, 2024).

Read more about Conflicts of Interest Bd. v. Mombrun.

Personnel

Termination of employment recommended.

ALJ Jonathan Fogel recommended termination of employment for an administrative director who knowingly approved a subordinate’s fraudulent timesheets, made false timesheet entries on his behalf, and failed to verify the accuracy of his timesheets. Admin. for Children’s Services v. King, OATH Index No. 2284/24 (Oct. 11, 2024).

Read more about Admin. for Children’s Services v. King and other Personnel cases.

Licensing

Revocation of license and imposition of civil penalty recommended.

ALJ Julia H. Lee recommended revoking respondents’ home improvement company license and imposing a $1,850 civil penalty based on respondents’ creation of a straw company to evade DCWP’s enforcement actions. Dep’t of Consumer & Worker Protection v. Diplomat Home Remodeling, LLC, OATH Index No. 1467/24 (Oct. 1, 2024).

Read more about Dep’t of Consumer & Worker Protection v. Diplomat Home Remodeling, LLC.

Appeals from the Hearings Division

An appeals decision vacated a hearing decision sustaining a Taxi and Limousine Commission (“TLC”) rule violation against a licensee who permitted another person to use her TLC driver’s license to work and pick up Uber passengers. At trial, respondent testified that she permitted her friend to drive her car but did not authorize her to work. The appeals decision vacated the judicial hearing officer’s determination and remanded the matter for a new hearing based on its reversal of precedent. The appeal decision reversed prior precedent finding that petitioner failed to establish its prima facie case where the summons failed to specifically allege that respondent permitted the driver to use respondent’s TLC driver’s license. It reasoned that the prior decisions failed to consider that circumstantial evidence may be sufficient to establish a prima facie case. Here, although the summons did not specifically allege that respondent permitted use of her TLC license, petitioner established a prima facie case by circumstantial evidence. Nonetheless, the appeals decision remanded the case for a new hearing because the respondent may have relied on the now-overturned precedent in presenting her defense. TLC v. Tat C Hidalgo-Demari, Appeal No. 74730273A (Oct. 30, 2024).

An appeals decision reversed a hearing decision dismissing a Building Code violation for failure to remove household trash from the deck of a sidewalk shed. At the hearing, the issuing officer testified that he observed household items on the sidewalk shed but not construction activity. The judicial hearing officer found that the cited Building Code provision only applied if there was ongoing construction work and dismissed the charge. The appeals decision reversed, finding that the provision in question required a building owner to maintain and clean a sidewalk shed where there is no active work. Further, the decision found that the violation was established because the Building Code prohibited placement of any item on a sidewalk shed unless the shed is designed for storage. DOB v. Harlem United Supportive Housi, Appeal No. 2401003 (Oct. 31, 2024).

An appeals decision affirmed a hearing decision sustaining an Administrative Code violation for work without a permit. In the summons, the issuing officer affirmed observing two illegal neon business signs installed at the front of the premises without a permit. At the hearing, respondent asserted that the sign structure and electrical work existed prior to their ownership of the property and that respondent only changed the sign copy by sliding in a panel. The appeals decision affirmed the judicial hearing officer’s holding that the violation was established because changing the sign copy required a permit. The decision also noted that illuminated sign permits are renewable annually, therefore respondent was required to obtain an illuminated sign permit when the sign copy was changed. DOB v. Fertig Bret, Appeal No. 2401255 (Oct. 31, 2024).