OATH Recent Decisions

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

Personnel

ALJ Seon Jeong Lee recommended a 50-day suspension for a correction officer who engaged in misconduct by possessing an unauthorized electronic device and submitting a false or misleading report about the incident. The ALJ credited the testimony of respondent’s fellow correction officers, which was supported by their contemporaneous notes and reports, in finding that respondent entered a Department facility while in possession of her personal cell phone. The ALJ also found that respondent submitted a false or misleading report by stating that she had secured the cell phone in the bus prior to entering the facility and omitting any reference to having the cell phone with her inside the facility. While petitioner sought termination for the proved charges, the ALJ found this penalty to be excessive citing the principle of progressive discipline and mitigating factors such as the speed with which respondent left the facility and secured her phone on the bus after realizing it was on her person and before the start of a housing search operation. Additionally, the ALJ noted that although this was respondent’s second offense related to making a dishonest statement, respondent had served the Department for eight years, the underlying incident did not cause injury or risk to others, and a penalty short of termination could deter against similar misconduct in the future. Accordingly, the ALJ recommended a 10-day suspension for the unauthorized possession of a cell phone and a 40-day suspension for the false or misleading report. Dep’t of Correction v. Gairy, OATH Index No. 2043/25 (Dec. 11, 2025).

ALJ Astrid B. Gloade recommended a 22-day suspension for a city research scientist charged with insubordination and making a false, deceptive, and misleading entry into an agency record. After being directed not to do so, respondent worked on and sent emails concerning matters not assigned to her and copied the agency commissioner and deputy commissioner on routine work emails. Respondent also submitted a request for Office of Information Technology (“OIT”) service desk assistance on behalf of the agency commissioner without his knowledge or approval in an effort to restore her access to an agency database. The ALJ found that respondent willfully disobeyed her direct supervisor’s clear and unambiguous instructions to refrain from sending emails regarding issues not assigned to her, and to refrain from emailing outside her chain of command. The ALJ also found that respondent made a false entry into agency records when she submitted the OIT ticket on the commissioner’s behalf without authorization and misrepresented that she sent the request on the commissioner’s behalf. Accordingly, the ALJ recommended respondent be suspended for 22 days without pay, noting the penalty was coupled with a 15-day prehearing suspension that respondent had already served. Admin. for Children’s Services v. Villavicencio, OATH Index No. 189/25 (Dec. 22, 2025), adopted, Comm’r Dec. (Dec. 30, 2025).

ALJ Julia H. Lee recommended termination for an Emergency Medical Technician (“EMT”), finding that petitioner established that respondent violated its rules by engaging in off-duty conduct that led to his arrest and conviction for unlawful surveillance in the second degree. Respondent was arrested in October 2022 and charged with unlawful surveillance in the second degree for recording a sexual encounter without consent. At the time of his arrest, respondent was working as a health assistant technician (“HAT”). After his arrest, he was suspended for 30 days and reassigned as a telecommunications associate where his job duties included maintaining cellphones. In May 2023, respondent pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful surveillance in the second degree. While respondent did not dispute that his conviction had a nexus to his duties as an EMT, he argued that there was no nexus between his conviction and his current duties as a telecommunications associate. Noting that respondent’s transfer to his current position was a result of his arrest which prevented him from continuing his work as a HAT, the ALJ disagreed. The ALJ found that there was a nexus between respondent’s conviction for unlawful surveillance and his duties as an EMT and HAT, both of which involve private medical procedures and confidential employee health information. The ALJ further noted that the crime to which respondent pleaded guilty involved the surreptitious recording of a woman during sexual activity, an act evincing moral turpitude and a violation of the Department’s regulations and code of conduct. Accordingly, the ALJ recommended termination of respondent’s employment. Fire Dep’t v. Steed, OATH Index No. 1609/25 (Jan. 14, 2026).

Licensing

ALJ Orlando Rodriguez recommended lifting the license suspension of a TLC-licensed driver arrested for assault for an off-duty domestic incident. The ALJ found that respondent's licensure did not pose a direct or substantial threat to the public health or safety because the incident took place over a year before his arrest and there was no indication of escalating violence or abuse since the alleged incident. The ALJ further noted that respondent has completed 7000 rides over approximately 15 years, has a good, albeit imperfect, driving record, and has never received any passenger complaints alleging threatening or improper behavior. The ALJ also noted that the complainant failed to include any reference to the instant allegations when she reported a separate incident in October 2025, undercutting the weight of the allegations in the instant matter. Accordingly, the ALJ recommended lifting the suspension. Taxi & Limousine Comm’n v. Uddin, OATH Index No. 1051/26 (Jan. 2, 2026), adopted, Comm’r Dec. (Jan. 6, 2026).

ALJ Seon Jeong Lee recommended the continuation of the license suspension of a taxi driver arrested for assault in the third degree. According to the criminal complaint report, on December 26, 2025, while at JFK Airport Terminal 4, respondent hit the complainant, a passenger, in the face with his phone which caused a “laceration and swelling” to the complainant’s face, and was arrested by the police. Respondent testified that on the night of the incident he picked up a group of passengers at the airport and asked them to wait while he put their luggage in the trunk, but one passenger “threw” a bag into the backseat. Respondent testified that he asked that passenger in a loud voice why he had thrown the bag, and the passenger pushed him. Respondent presented a video that showed the complainant, a second passenger, pushing respondent and saying that respondent hit him in the face with his phone. Respondent denied hitting the complainant, but testified that he might have injured the passenger with his fingernail or phone during the altercation. Noting that the video did not show respondent’s hand or phone near the complainant’s face during the altercation, the ALJ found that respondent’s testimony was “incredible” and that there was no extraordinary provocation justifying respondent’s actions toward his passengers. Although respondent presented some mitigating evidence, such as a lack of prior arrests or suspensions and testimony regarding his good character, the ALJ found that considering all the relevant factors, including respondent’s record of eight separate violations of petitioner’s rules over approximately three years, petitioner established that respondent’s continued licensure poses a direct and substantial threat to public health or safety. Taxi & Limousine Comm’n v. Sutradhar, OATH Index No. 1144/26 (Jan. 23, 2026).

Vehicle Seizure

ALJ Jonathan Fogel ordered the release of a vehicle seized by the Police Department following the arrest of the respondent for criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. Respondent, who pled guilty to the charge, was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment, and was not present at the hearing. Respondent’s fiancée provided a notarized letter from respondent authorizing her to represent him. According to the arrest report and criminal court complaint, the arresting officer recovered two loaded firearms from respondent’s vehicle. The ALJ noted that while possession of a loaded firearm in a vehicle is the type of crime that demonstrates a heightened risk to public safety, a case-by-case determination is required by the Krimstock Order. The ALJ credited respondent’s fiancée’s testimony that not having the vehicle has caused significant hardship for her and her family, including the significant distance she has to travel for work, and because she needs access to transportation in order to take care of her and respondent’s minor child as well as respondent’s elderly mother, who both have medical conditions. While petitioner argued that respondent would use the vehicle upon his release from custody, the ALJ found that based on the length of respondent’s incarceration, this argument was insufficient to demonstrate that releasing the vehicle to respondent’s fiancée posed a heightened risk to public safety. Police Dep’t v. Cunningham, OATH Index No. 569/26, mem. dec. (Dec. 11, 2025).