Man with service dog improperly denied access to building.

ALJ Alessandra Zorgniotti found that a security guard company violated the New York City Human Rights Law when its guards denied the complainant and his service dog access to a building. The complainant was stopped in the lobby by a guard because he was accompanied by a small dog and was not blind. The guard questioned the complainant about his disability, and after learning it was HIV, told him to get away from her. The ALJ recommended that the complainant be awarded $20,360 in compensatory damages, including $20,000 mental anguish damages. She also recommended that respondent be assessed a civil penalty of $15,000 and directed to provide human rights law training for its employees.  Comm’n on Human Rights ex rel Romo v. ISS Action Security (in PDF), OATH Index No. 674/11 (Apr. 12, 2011).

ALJ recommends marriage license be processed.

Marriage license applicant appealed the denial of her application based on record of 1979 and 1985 marriages by a person with the same name and birth date. ALJ Tynia Richard credited testimony from the applicant and her intended that they have lived together without separation since 1978. She also noted the applicant’s signature differed from the brides’ signatures on the prior applications. Further, an investigative reporter testified that she located the groom from the 1979 marriage, who told her on camera that the applicant’s picture did not look like the woman he had married. ALJ Richard recommended that the City Clerk process respondent’s application for a marriage license.   Office of the City Clerk v. Aquino (in PDF), OATH Index No. 1431/11 (Apr. 12, 2011), adopted, Clerk’s Dec. (Apr. 14, 2011).

Car owner was properly served with notice at time of arrest.

ALJ Kara Miller ruled the Police Department is entitled to retain a car it seized from the owner in connection with his arrest for driving while intoxicated and refusing to take a breathalyzer test. Counsel argued that the car should be returned because his client was not served with notice of a right to hearing at the time of the seizure. ALJ Miller found the Vehicle Seizure form, which was properly filled out, established notice was given at the time of arrest. She gave little weight to a brief affidavit from the car owner who perfunctorily denied receipt of notice at the time of arrest where he chose not to appear at trial and be subject to cross-examination.  Police Dep’t v. Lopez (in PDF), OATH Index No. 2045/11, mem. dec. (Apr. 8, 2011).

Use of force against inmate results in charges against correction personnel.

Two captains and two correction officers were charged with misconduct stemming from an altercation with an inmate which began when the inmate refused to return a department-issued razor. ALJ Kevin Casey dismissed a charge that one of the captains used improper force, crediting his claim that he acted in self-defense when he hit the inmate with a helmet. Failure to properly supervise staff charge was sustained based upon video which showed the captain standing directly behind two officers as they improperly dragged the subdued inmate out of the housing area. One correction officer was found to have kicked the inmate after he was handcuffed and subdued. The other officer was found to have copied a captain’s report. All four respondents made false or misleading statements during official interviews. Suspensions ranging from 20 to 60 days were recommended.  Dep’t of Correction v. Jackson, Grant, Matos and Stevens (in PDF), OATH Index Nos. 2927/10, 2929/10, 2930/10 and 2931/10 (Apr. 7, 2011).

Evidence of settlements in related cases excluded at trial. 

In a consolidated disciplinary hearing brought against two captains and two correction officers stemming from a use-of-force incident with an inmate, to corroborate the inmates’ version of the events, the Department offered evidence to show that it had brought charges against other department personnel and those employees accepted penalties in satisfaction of the charges. ALJ Casey barred the evidence, finding it would shed little if any light on the charges against respondents. It would also lead to protracted mini-trials where the parties would explore other officers’ reasons for accepting penalties.  Dep’t of Correction v. Jackson, Grant, Matos and Stevens (in PDF), OATH Index Nos. 2927/10, 2929/10, 2930/10 and 2931/10 (Apr. 7, 2011).