BenchNOTES Newsletter

Overview Rules of Practice Trial Calendar Decisions

BenchNOTES Newsletter

OATH News

Job opportunities at OATH:

OATH Trial Division is hiring a Chief Law Clerk to head its legal research unit and help promote access to justice in New York City. The unit consists of Law Clerks who perform legal research and draft court documents for the OATH Administrative Law Judges. The Chief Law Clerk works directly with OATH’s Administrative Law Judges on all matters that come before the Trials Division, including civil servant discipline, consumer and worker protection matters, taxi and rideshare licensing, contract disputes involving the city, as well as cases falling under the Campaign Finance Law, Human Rights Law, Conflict of Interest Law, and more. The Chief Law Clerk has a supervisory role. For more details visit https://cityjobs.nyc.gov/ and search for Job ID 710250 (Chief Law Clerk).

The job requires admission to the New York State Bar; four years of recent full-time responsible, relevant, satisfactory legal experience following admission to any bar, 18 months of which must have been in the supervision of other attorneys, in an administrative, managerial or executive capacity. Experience handling highly complex and significant legal work is a plus. Incumbents must remain members of the New York State Bar in good standing for the duration of this employment.

Trials Division

Personnel

Dismissal of charges recommended.

ALJ Kara J. Miller recommended dismissal of charges against respondent, a child protective specialist supervisor, after petitioner, the Administration for Children’s Services, failed to prove that respondent engaged in misconduct. Admin. for Children’s Services v. Ally, OATH Index No. 782/23 (May 30, 2025).

Human Rights

Civil penalty, back pay, and emotional distress damages recommended.

ALJ Orlando Rodriguez recommended awarding $60,000 in emotional distress damages, $6,850 in backpay, and a $50,000 civil penalty against a physical therapy provider for engaging in religious discrimination in violation of the City Human Rights Law. Comm’n of Human Rights ex rel. Rahman v. Revival Physical Therapy & Rehabilitation Services, OATH Index No. 1796/24 (May 22, 2025).

Vehicle Seizures

Police Department may not retain a seized vehicle.

ALJ Julia Davis determined that the Police Department may not retain a vehicle seized as an alleged instrumentality of a crime after petitioner failed to prove it would prevail in a civil action for forfeiture of the vehicle. Police Dep’t v. Fortes, OATH Index No. 2022/25, mem. dec. (May 9, 2025).

Procedure

Denying application to take judicial notice.

ALJ Joycelyn McGeachy-Kuls denied respondent’s application to take judicial notice of, or admit as evidence, transcripts from a prior proceeding. Dep’t of Sanitation v. Guiseppone, OATH Index No. 789/25 (May 7, 2025).

Appeals from the Hearings Division

An appellate decision reversed part of a hearing decision dismissing charges under the New York City Zoning Resolution for use of a prohibited illuminated/flashing advertising sign in an M2 district while acting as an outdoor advertising company (“OAC”) and of the New York City Administrative Code for failure to register as an OAC. The summonses were issued for two flashing signs, one for a political campaign and one for an auto repair business, mounted on a truck in a diner parking lot. At the hearing, respondent, a media company, testified that it installs LED screens in establishments like the diner and drives trucks with LED advertisements throughout the city, which is legal. Respondent also testified that the cited truck was parked temporarily in the diner parking lot because the driver was eating and using the restroom at the diner. Petitioner asserted that the truck was there day and night. The hearing officer dismissed all charges, finding that respondent was not an OAC but rather provided mobile advertising services. On appeal, petitioner argued that the evidence established that respondent was an OAC because it used the truck as an advertising structure situated on premises in a non-transitory manner. The appellate decision reversed the dismissal of charges relating to the auto repair sign, finding that petitioner’s photographs of the vehicle plugged into an outdoor charging station with illuminated signs established that the truck had been parked for days and respondent met the definition of an OAC. As for the political campaign sign, the appellate decision affirmed the dismissal of the related charges after finding that it was not an advertisement because it did not direct attention to a business. DOB v. Geometria NY Inc, Appeal No. 2500393 (May 29, 2025).

An appellate decision reversed part of a hearing decision sustaining a violation of § 3310.12 of the Building Code against respondent for failing to have a “Qualified Person” present on its construction site. The summons alleged that respondent designated the same Qualified Person for five building sites which created an “unsafe safety monitoring condition.” At the hearing, respondent testified that it was hired to perform roof renovation on eight buildings and that respondent filed safety plans for the eight buildings under one job application. Respondent argued that it complied with § 3310.12 by designating a Qualified Person to its construction project because a single project may encompass numerous buildings. Petitioner conceded this fact but argued that the Qualified Person must be present at the site when active work was occurring, and respondent’s Qualified Person could not logistically be at each of the five disputed building sites during active work. The hearing officer sustained the charge, finding that respondent failed to establish a defense. On appeal, respondent reiterated its hearing argument and petitioner did not answer. The appellate decision reversed, noting that § 3310.12 states that for a project whose scope is limited to repair of a roof, certain activities may be assigned from a site safety manager to a Qualified Person and that § 3310.5.4 of the Building Code specifically provides that “[a] site safety manager may be designated as the primary site safety manager for two or more sites, provided all sites meet the criteria set forth in Section 3310.12.” Based on these provisions, the appellate decision concluded that one individual may serve as the primary Qualified Person on a roof or façade repair project that encompasses multiple locations. DOB v. Roma Scaffolding Inc, Appeal No. 2500468 (May 29, 2025).

An appellate decision affirmed a hearing decision sustaining a violation of the New York City Administrative Code against respondent for street obstruction. The summons alleged that respondent placed a traffic cone on the street in front of his property which obstructed the flow of traffic. At the hearing, respondent testified that the traffic cone was placed by his neighbor in front of their shared driveway. The hearing officer rejected this as a defense. On appeal, respondent reiterated that the cone was in front of a shared driveway and questioned how petitioner determined that the cone was on his property. Petitioner did not answer the appeal. The appellate decision sustained the violation, finding that even if the cone was owned and placed in the street by respondent’s neighbor, the statute makes it unlawful for any person to “suffer or permit to be left” any moveable property on a street, regardless of ownership of the property. The decision noted that the location of the cone meant respondent derived a benefit from its placement and there was no evidence that respondent denied his neighbor permission to place the cone. Accordingly, respondent suffered or permitted the cone to be left on the street in violation of the Administrative Code. DSNY v. Funrari Michael T, Appeal No. 2500452 (May 29, 2025).