Last Month's OATH Decisions - January 2012


Prior marriages were not those of respondent.

A woman married in Long Island in 2004 sought a finding that two marriages registered in her name in New York City in 1996 were fraudulent. She presented evidence indicating that she was not married before 2004 and had been living at college in 1996 at addresses different from those given in the old New York City marriage records.  Office of the City Clerk v. Vargas-Poggi (in PDF), OATH Index No. 981/12 (Jan. 25, 2012), adopted, City Clerk’s Dec. (Jan. 26, 2012).

Read More


ALJ finds sewage treatment worker was not insubordinate.

ALJ Kara J. Miller dismissed charges that a sewage treatment worker was insubordinate and spoke inappropriately to a supervisor.  ALJ Miller found, based on the testimony of several witnesses, that there was a dispute between the two, but the evidence was insufficient to prove the supervisor ever issued an order, or that respondent used inappropriate language.    Dep’t of Environmental Protection v. DeCoursey (in PDF), OATH Index No. 666/12 (Jan. 31, 2012).

Read More

Real Property

ALJ recommends closure of driveway and yard used commercially for junk storage and car repair in a residential zone. 

ALJ Ingrid A. Addison recommended the closure of the driveway and yard portions of premises in the Bronx that was zoned solely for residential use but was being used for the storage of unlicensed cars, junk, and automobile repairs. Pre-hearing, the property owner executed a stipulation of settlement with the Department, agreeing to have those uses discontinued. A default was taken against respondent occupants and mortgagees, who were properly served but failed to appear.   Dep’t of Buildings v. 610 Mead Street, Bronx (in PDF), OATH Index No. 815/12 (Jan. 26, 2012).



CDRB finds plumbing contractor was required by contract to paint sprinkler pipes at garage in Queens.

A plumbing contractor appealed a determination that a $59,737 credit be taken against the contractor because it would not paint sprinkler piping it had installed at a Sanitation garage facility. The contractor argued that it was only required to paint items explicitly listed in the contract specifications and the piping was not so listed. The Contract Dispute Resolution Board, chaired by ALJ Casey, found an obligation to paint the piping existed in both the contract specifications and drawings. To the extent that there was any ambiguity, the contractor had a duty to clarify.    Grand Mechanical Corp. v. Dep’t of Sanitation (in PDF), OATH Index No. 378/12, mem. dec. (Jan. 12, 2012).