Chapter I - Subchapter D

§ 1-41 Consolidation; Separate Trials.

Consolidation; Joint Trial

JOINT TRIAL ORDERED

Administrative law judge consolidated harassment and access applications for trial. Matter of Alkara, OATH Index No. 1101/03 (Oct. 6, 2004), adopted in part, modified in part, Loft Bd. Order No. 2920 (Apr. 21, 2005) & Matter of Plot Realty, LLC, OATH Index No. 1285/03 (Oct. 6, 2004), adopted, Loft Bd. Order No. 2920 (Apr. 21, 2005).

Six separate license revocation proceedings against six different licensees, involving identical charges and common issues of law and fact, were consolidated by the administrative law judge sua sponte pursuant to this section. Dep't of Buildings v. Catapano, OATH Index Nos. 1066/97, 1091/97, 1122/97, 1184-86/97 (July 17, 1997).

Where joint adjudication and trial of two pending cases pursuant to the Loft Law would conserve resources for the parties and this tribunal, consolidation of the two cases was ordered. Matter of 315 Berry Street Corp., OATH Index No. 764/96, mem. dec. (Nov. 9, 1995).

Under this section and section 1-26(a) of this chapter, joint trial of cases involving the same parties is mandatory unless real and substantial prejudice by joint trial is shown. It is presumed that the trial judge will be able to distinguish proper inferences and arguments from improper ones. Human Resources Admin. v. Man-of-Jerusalem, OATH Index No. 790/91, mem. dec. (Nov. 12, 1991).

Severance

GENERALLY

Administrative adjudication is intended to be expeditious and efficient, and therefore such proceedings as bifurcated trials are largely alien to administrative law, and the presumption against bifurcation of trial is quite a heavy one. Dep't of Environmental Protection v. Bruni, OATH Index No. 1038/96, mem. dec. (May 16, 1996).

Severance of the petition for two separate trials is a matter for the trial judge's discretion. Bd. of Education v. Osoba, OATH Index No. 237/92 (Feb. 28, 1992).

SEVERANCE GRANTED

Where resolution of a preliminary issue in favor of the respondent would dispose of the case, alleviating the need for the petitioner to call its main witness on the merits of the case from North Carolina, and where the trial would take two days even if not bifurcated, the possibility of saving the petitioner and the taxpayers the considerable expense of bringing the out-of-state witness to trial warranted a bifurcated trial and resolution of the preliminary issue. Dep't of Environmental Protection v. Bruni, OATH Index No. 1038/96, mem. dec. (May 16, 1996).

Where the parties were ready to proceed to trial on certain employee disciplinary charges but not others, and where five days had been set aside for trial, severance was preferable to a continuance or last-minute adjournment of trial. Bd. of Education v. Osoba, OATH Index No. 237/92 (Feb. 28, 1992).

SEVERANCE DENIED

ALJ denied motion to sever charges brought against architect based upon the interests of justice, judicial economy and convenience.  The same ten witnesses would be called on each specification charged.  Dep’t of Buildings v. Scarano, OATH index No. 2571/08, mem. dec. (Mar. 18, 2009).

Taxi driver’s motion to have two cases heard by two different Administrative Law Judges was denied.  Driver failed to demonstrate prejudice, and consolidation of the two matters, which involved identical charges and common issues of law and fact, conserved judicial resources for the parties and the tribunal.  Taxi & Limousine Comm’n v. Alam, OATH Index Nos. 1833/10 & 2075/10 (Apr. 9, 2010).

On application to sever trial, charged employee failed to rebut heavy presumption against bifurcation given that interests of administrative efficiency weigh in favor of consolidating incidents for trial. Dep't of Correction v. Graham, OATH Index No. 1380/03 (Feb. 25, 2004).

The contention by both parties that bifurcation of trial might improve the prospects of a settlement of the case was, by itself, insufficient to justify bifurcation. Dep't of Environmental Protection v. Bruni, OATH Index No. 1038/96, mem. dec. (May 16, 1996).

The fact that the petition alleged multiple counts of misconduct, even multiple counts of similar misconduct, was not a basis for separate trials on the different counts. Human Resources Admin. v. Man-of-Jerusalem, OATH Index No. 790/91, mem. dec. (Nov. 12, 1991); Police Dep't v. Ruotolo, OATH Index No. 612/91 (Mar. 14, 1991).

TIMELINESS OF MOTION FOR SEVERANCE

Untimeliness of a motion for a severance, made on the day of trial, was an important factor weighing against grant of the motion. Police Dep't v. Ruotolo, OATH Index No. 612/91 (Mar. 14, 1991); see also Police Dep't v. Combs, OATH Index Nos. 1073/91, 422/92 (July 7, 1992).