Overview Rules of Practice Trial Calendar Decisions

BenchNOTES Newsletter

OATH News

Vilda Vera Mayuga appointed as Commissioner and Chief Administrative Law Judge. On January 31, 2026, Mayor Zohran Mamdani appointed Vilda Vera Mayuga to serve as the Commissioner and Chief Administrative Law Judge of the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (OATH). A seasoned public servant, Chief Judge Mayuga most recently served as Commissioner of the New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection, where she secured approximately $2 billion for New Yorkers through restitution and financial empowerment programs. Chief Judge Mayuga previously served as Deputy Secretary for Economic Opportunity at the New York State Department of State; as Deputy Commissioner for Worker Protection at the New York State Department of Labor; and as Chair of the New York State Industrial Board of Appeals, the first Latina to hold the position. She also worked as an Assistant Attorney General in the Civil Rights Bureau of the Office of the New York Attorney General, where she managed a diverse caseload of civil rights cases and handled every stage of litigation. Chief Judge Mayuga graduated magna cum laude with a B.A. in International Relations from Boston University. She received her law degree from the University of Puerto Rico School of Law in Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico and is a member of the New York Bar.

Faye Lewis appointed as Supervising Administrative Law Judge in the OATH Trials Division. In February 2026, Judge Faye Lewis was appointed as Supervising Administrative Law Judge and Deputy Commissioner of the Trials Division. Supervising Judge Lewis was appointed to the position of Administrative Law Judge at OATH in 1991. Prior to that, she was an associate at the law firm formerly known as Obermaier, Morvillo and Abramowitz. She later served as an Assistant Attorney General in the Labor Bureau of the New York State Office of the Attorney General, where her duties included affirmative litigation as well as appellate defense. She received her Bachelor of Arts degree in public affairs from Princeton University and her law degree from New York University School of Law. She has served as a Board member on the New York State Association of Administrative Law Judges since October 2024 and is a member of the Equal Justice Subcommittee. Supervising Judge Lewis received OATH’s Distinguished Legal Service Award in 2025.

New Administrative Law Judges appointed. In March 2026, Commissioner and Chief Administrative Law Judge Vilda Vera Mayuga appointed Hanchun Lin and Ka Fei Wong each to a five-year term as an Administrative Law Judge. Judge Lin most recently served as an Impartial Hearing Officer in the Special Education Hearings Division and previously served as the Chief Law Clerk in OATH’s Trials Division. She previously was the Deputy Director of the NYC Loft Board, an Impartial Hearing Officer with the NYC Department of Housing Preservation and Development, and a Senior Staff Attorney with Queens Legal Services. Judge Wong most recently served as the Attorney-in-Charge at the Pro Se Legal Assistance Program at Hofstra Law School, where he oversaw a caseload that included employment discrimination and civil rights cases. He is also an Adjunct Professor of Law at Hofstra Law School.

CityAdmin Notice: The OATH decision database has moved. The CityAdmin Document Repository is now hosted by the City of New York and can be found here: https://nyc.mindbreeze.com/search/apps/cityadmin/.

Contract Dispute Resolution Board Panelists: OATH is accepting applications from qualified persons to serve on Contract Dispute Resolution Board (CDRB) panels. CDRB panels hear the final appeal in a three-step dispute resolution process contained in City contracts for construction, goods and services. Each CDRB panel consists of an OATH Administrative Law Judge, as chair, a representative of the Mayor’s Office of Contract Services, and a third member selected from a pre-qualified roster of individuals, established and administered by OATH, who has appropriate expertise and is unaffiliated and not employed by the City.

Those interested in being added to the roster of pre-qualified individuals are encouraged to apply. Applicants should have a background and experience in government contracting, construction, engineering or related law. The application form, as well as more information on the panelist role, can be found here. Completed applications should be sent via e-mail to the OATH Trials Division Law Clerks, LawClerks@oath.nyc.gov.

Trials Division

Personnel

Termination of employment recommended.

ALJ Astrid B. Gloade recommended termination of employment for a respiratory therapist who left a patient’s ventilator on standby mode for 30 minutes, thereby depriving the patient of oxygen, and falsified an entry into the patient’s medical records. Health & Hospitals Corp. (Henry J. Carter Specialty Hospital & Nursing Facility) v. Augustin, OATH Index No. 334/26 (Feb. 6, 2026).

Licensing

Continuation of license suspension recommended.

ALJ Jonathan Fogel recommended continuing the license suspension of a TLC licensee arrested for driving while intoxicated, driving while ability impaired by the consumption of alcohol, and leaving the scene of a personal injury accident. Taxi & Limousine Comm’n v. Singh, OATH Index No. 619/26 (Feb. 9, 2026), adopted, Comm’r Dec. (Feb. 24, 2026).

Real Property

Recission of certificate of no harassment recommended.

ALJ Christine Stecura recommended rescission of a certificate of no harassment for a mixed-use building, where the owner harassed the building’s single room occupancy tenants after the certificate was granted, and no substantial work had commenced on the premises at the time the harassment took place. Dep’t of Housing Preservation & Development v. Geylik, OATH Index No. 1984/25 (Feb. 20, 2026), adopted, Comm’r Dec. (Mar. 9, 2026).

Appeals from the Hearings Division

An appellate decision affirmed a hearing decision sustaining a violation of § 80-13(a)(3)(xiv) of Title 35 of the Rules of the City of New York for driving in the wrong direction. Petitioner’s case rested on the affirmed statement in the summons that respondent, a licensed Taxi and Limousine Commission driver, drove in the opposite direction of the designated direction, in violation of VTL § 1127(a). At the hearing and on appeal, respondent claimed that he was confused by a conflict between “one-way” and “Do Not Enter” signs directly in front of him at the cited intersection and the traffic control lights a block away at a different intersection. The appellate decision deferred to the hearing officer’s discrediting of respondent’s claim of confusion, noting that respondent’s own photographic evidence belied this claim. TLC v. Walker, Jonathan, Appeal No. 73571140A (February 12, 2026).

An appellate decision affirmed a hearing decision sustaining a violation of § 151.02(a) of the Health Code for failing to keep premises free of pests. Petitioner’s case rested on the affirmed statements on the summons that trash cans had fresh gnaw marks and that fresh rat droppings and active rat runways were present at various locations. At the hearing and on appeal, respondent argued that its evidence of regular cleaning and monthly extermination services established that it took adequate measures prior to the date of violation to prevent and control the harborage and free movement of rats. The appellate decision found that while a respondent may generally establish a defense to a charge of active rat signs by showing that adequate measures were taken prior to the date of offense to prevent and control the harborage and free movement of rats, the presence of conditions conducive to pests negates any preventive effect of such measures. The appellate decision concluded that the gnawed holes in the respondent’s trash cans constituted conditions conducive to rats, thereby rendering respondent’s preventive measures inadequate. DOHMH v. 443 Pulaski St LLC, Appeal No. 2501422 (February 26, 2026).

An appellate decision reversed a hearing decision sustaining a Class 1 violation of § 28-118.3.2 of the New York City Administrative Code for occupancy in a manner contrary to the certificate of occupancy (“C of O”). Petitioner’s case rested on the affirmed statements in the summons that a third floor had been added to the cited building, contrary to the C of O. At the hearing, respondent challenged the Class 1 designation of the charge, asserting that it had merely renovated the attic level, not added a new third floor. Respondent also argued petitioner failed to issue a Request for Correction Action prior to issuing the summons, as required by petitioner’s Homeowner’s Resolution Program applicable to eligible violations issued to one- to two-family homeowners. The hearing officer found that the cited conditions were immediately hazardous and therefore the violation was properly designated as Class 1. She also found that a Class 1 violation for illegal conversion was not eligible for the Homeowner’s Resolution Program. The appellate decision found that while a Class 1 charge of Code § 28-118.3.2 is an eligible violation under the Homeowner’s Resolution Program, the charge here was not eligible because a stop work order was issued as a result of the summons. Nevertheless, the appellate decision noted that the C of O indicated that the attic at the cited premises was a habitable space and concluded that the existing attic was a not an added third floor, as alleged in the summons, or an occupancy contrary to that allowed by the C of O. DOB v. Simon, Daniel, Appeal No. 2600030 (February 26, 2026)