Decisions - OATH

Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings

Independent and Impartial Administrative Law Court


OverviewRules of PracticeTrial CalendarDecisions

Search Decisions
BenchNOTES Newsletter

Search Decisions

BenchNOTES Newsletter


OATH Recent Decisions

To subscribe to receive the monthly BenchNOTES newsletter by email, click here.

Personnel

ALJ Faye Lewis recommended a 49-day suspension for a captain after he placed a person in custody in an impermissible neck restraint and submitted a false or misleading use of force report about the incident. Respondent was attempting to stop a detainee from leaving a designated housing area when he grabbed the detainee’s neck and threw him to the ground. The video evidence contradicted respondent’s argument that contact with the detainee’s neck was inadvertent. The ALJ found that there was no evidence that respondent was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury and, therefore, the neck restraint was unjustified and excessive. The ALJ also found that respondent made a material omission in his use of force report by writing that he applied force to the “upper body” without mentioning that he applied force to the neck. After weighing respondent’s minimal disciplinary record, his duties as a captain, and the severity of the misconduct, the ALJ recommended a penalty consistent with the Disciplinary Guidelines for Use of Force Incidents issued under the aegis of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the principles of progressive discipline, and the written policy of the Department of Correction. Dep’t of Correction v. Russell, OATH Index No. 880/25 (Dec. 19, 2024).

ALJ Tiffany Hamilton recommended a 60-day suspension for a hospital employee after he engaged in a physical altercation and disrupted the workplace. The ALJ found that respondent initiated a physical altercation with his coworker and struck him in the face after the coworker demanded an apology from respondent for behavior that the coworker perceived to be disrespectful. The ALJ further found that the witness reports and testimony established that respondent caused a workplace disruption by yelling, fighting, and knocking over a water dispenser. Petitioner sought termination for the proved charges, but the ALJ found this penalty excessive. The ALJ noted that while respondent’s misconduct was troubling, the principles of progressive discipline and mitigating circumstances, such as respondent’s commendable work history of almost 20 years, his initial attempts to avoid the altercation, and coworker testimony regarding his professionalism, supported a finding that respondent be given an opportunity to keep his job. As a result, the ALJ recommended a 60-day suspension instead of termination. Health & Hospitals Corp. (Jacobi Medical Center) v. Rozier, OATH Index No. 358/24 (Dec. 5, 2024).

Licensing

ALJ Kevin F. Casey recommended dismissing a charge of failing a drug test, after a TLC licensee raised the affirmative defense of innocent ingestion. TLC alleged that the licensee was unfit to retain a TLC driver’s license after she tested positive for the presence of cocaine. The licensee attributed the positive test to coca tea she drank the evening before her drug test. The ALJ credited the licensee’s testimony regarding her consumption of the tea, and further credited her corroborating evidence, including a friend’s testimony, the tea box, scientific journals, a toxicology treatise, and a letter from her doctor. The ALJ found that the licensee met her burden of proof and TLC failed to counter the licensee’s evidence that tea consumed was available in local stores and caused her to test positive for the presence of cocaine. As a result, the ALJ found that the licensee was fit to possess a TLC driver’s license and recommended dismissing the charge. Taxi & Limousine Comm’n v. Haddad, OATH Index No. 617/25 (Dec. 20, 2024).

Human Rights

ALJ Julia H. Lee recommended dismissal of a housing discrimination claim due to petitioner’s failure to establish a prima facie case against a landlord and his wife who allegedly refused to rent housing accommodations based on applicants’ national origins. Petitioner argued that the landlord violated New York City’s Human Rights Law on two separate occasions when he asked individuals where they were from after they called to express interest in renting a unit. The ALJ found that petitioner failed to prove discrimination for the first interaction because there was no evidence that the landlord had any knowledge of the applicant’s national origin. During the phone call, the applicant did not provide his name or any identifying information and had no discernible accent. Similarly, in the second incident, the ALJ found that petitioner did not present any evidence demonstrating that the landlord perceived the applicant to be of a protected class based on a single phone conversation. The ALJ also found that there was no evidence that the landlord denied the applicants the opportunity to apply for housing due to their national origins. Furthermore, the ALJ found there was insufficient evidence of any involvement by the landlord’s wife. As a result, the ALJ recommended dismissal of the claims against the landlord and his wife. Comm’n on Human Rights ex rel. Lopez v. Kahn, OATH Index No. 738/23 (Dec. 27, 2024).