OATH Recent Decisions

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

Licensing

ALJ Joycelyn McGeachy-Kuls recommended lifting the license suspension of a taxi driver arrested for assault of another driver. Respondent testified that on the day of the incident, while he was in the taxi line waiting for passengers, another taxi hit the rear of his vehicle. The other driver got out of his vehicle after respondent asked him to move and punched respondent in the face and nose. Respondent denied hitting the other driver. He called the police, who arrested both drivers. The ALJ found that while the underlying charge related to respondent’s duties as a TLC driver, the facts of this case differed from cases where licenses were revoked for incidents with other drivers. In those cases, unlike here, the licensee was driving passengers, had gotten into an accident, or used a weapon. The ALJ also credited respondent’s testimony explaining the underlying arrest and noted that respondent’s evidence of his injuries supported his testimony. The ALJ further noted that the police report descriptions of the incident were vague and cast doubt on the allegations. Lastly, the ALJ found that respondent’s mitigating evidence established that he is a law-abiding man with no criminal history, passenger complaints, or DMV violations. The ALJ determined that the arrest appeared to be an aberrational incident and petitioner failed to establish that respondent’s continued licensure posed a direct or substantial threat to health or safety. Taxi & Limousine Comm’n v. Goni, OATH Index 1238/25 (Jan. 24, 2025).

Real Property

OATH ALJ Christine Stecura recommended granting the protected occupancy application of tenants residing in a unit covered under the Loft Law. The ALJ rejected respondent’s argument that the tenants could not be protected because they signed a commercial lease, noting that the Loft Law is premised on a recognition that loft units leased for commercial use were being used residentially. The relevant inquiry of a protected occupancy determination is the tenant’s actual use of the Unit. The ALJ found that the tenants’ presentation of witness testimony and documentary evidence, such as bank statements, utility invoices, delivery receipts, car service receipts, and photographs, proved they used the Unit as their primary residence. The ALJ further found that respondent’s allegation that the tenants used the Unit commercially to operate a social club was unsupported. The ALJ rejected respondent’s argument that the tenants did not have a valid lease, finding that when the lease was signed the prior landlord had authority to act on the building’s behalf. The ALJ further determined that even if the lease was no longer in effect, the tenants were still entitled to protected occupancy status as statutory tenants because they took possession of the Unit with the landlord’s consent. Matter of Wharton-Bickley, OATH Index No. 2654/23 (Jan. 15, 2025).

Vehicle Seizure

ALJ Seon J. Lee determined that the Police Department may retain a vehicle seized as an alleged instrumentality of a crime. The ALJ found that probable cause existed for arresting respondent for driving while intoxicated because respondent exhibited signs of alcohol intoxication and had open beer containers in the backseat of his vehicle. The petitioner also established the likelihood of success in a civil forfeiture action with the undisputed evidence that respondent was operating his vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and the vehicle was used as an instrumentality of a crime. Lastly, the ALJ found that release of the vehicle presented a heightened risk to public safety because respondent’s BAC level far exceeded and was double the legal limit, a fact that OATH precedent has consistently found creates a heightened risk. The ALJ rejected respondent’s argument that the BAC test result was inadmissible because it was taken outside the statutorily required time frame, stating that the admissibility of the test in criminal court was not properly before this tribunal and the scope of admissibility at these proceedings is broad in order to include evidence the ALJ considers reliable. Police Dep’t v. Brown, OATH Index No. 1241/25 mem. dec. (Jan. 28, 2025).

Contracts

The Contract Dispute Resolution Board, chaired by ALJ Christine Stecura, granted the Department of Environmental Protection’s motion to dismiss a contractor’s claim for extra work it performed, in connection with a supply and service contract for gas turbine generators at wastewater treatment plants, because it was time-barred. DEP initially paid the contractor for replacing the fuel injectors on three gas turbine generators but subsequently deducted the payment after it determined the work to be contract work and not eligible for payment. The contractor claimed that replacing the fuel injectors was repair work and not part of the maintenance services provided under the contract. The Board agreed with the contractor, finding that under the contract maintenance services did not include replacing the fuel injectors. Nevertheless, the Board found that the contractor’s claim was time-barred because the notice of dispute, the notice of claim, and the petition were all untimely filed. The Board rejected the contractor’s argument that the deadlines were tolled by COVID-19 related executive orders because DEP’s determination, the triggering event that precipitated the contractor’s filing deadlines, occurred after the tolling period expired. Acme Industrial Inc., LLC v. Dep’t of Environmental Protection, OATH Index No. 287/50, mem. dec. (Jan. 22, 2025).