Overview Rules of Practice Trial Calendar Decisions

BenchNOTES Newsletter

OATH News

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 Seon Jeong Lee recommended termination of employment for a correction officer who, during an escort of a rear-cuffed detainee on a transportation bus, pushed the detainee with such force into a small holding pen that her face hit the metal grate on the window, causing serious facial injury. Dep’t of Correction v. Young, OATH Index No. 1637/26 (May 11, 2026).

Licensing and Registration

Revocation of registrations and payment of civil penalties ordered.

ALJ Kevin F. Casey revoked the registrations for three short-term rental units in Queens and ordered the payment of civil penalties after the Mayor’s Office of Special Enforcement proved that respondents made materially false statements in their registration applications and violated multiple provisions of the rules governing short-term rentals. Mayor’s Office of Special Enforcement v. Haque, Ahmed, & Haque

Contracts

Contractor’s petition dismissed.

The Contract Dispute Resolution Board, chaired by ALJ Astrid B. Gloade, denied a contractor’s petition challenging a directive from the Department of Transportation to replace the parking garage floor at the West 79th Street Rotunda. Judlau Contracting, Inc. v. Dep’t of Transportation, OATH Index No. 981/25, mem. dec. (May 21, 2026).

Appeals from the Hearings Division

An appellate decision affirmed a hearing decision sustaining a violation of § 1-04(b)(1)(i) of Title 56 of the Rules of the City of New York for cutting, removal, or destruction of a tree. Petitioner’s case rested on the affirmed statements on the summons that respondent was observed pulling and breaking branches off a recently planted young tree. On appeal, as at the hearing, respondent asserted that, when walking by the park, he saw that a branch had been ripped off from the tree, leaving a strip of bark hanging, which he pruned with his hands in order to prevent someone from stripping the bark all the way to the ground and probably killing the tree. The appellate decision agreed with the hearing officer’s finding that, while credible, respondent’s assertion did not establish a defense as the cited rule prohibits any person from destroying a tree and provides that the term “prune” is specifically included in the term “destroy.” DPR v. Gabriel Sigmund Bobek, Appeal No. 2600386 (May 28, 2026).

An appellate decision reversed a hearing decision sustaining a violation of “16 RCNY § 16-308.1.” Petitioner’s case rested on the affirmed statement on the summons that organic waste was placed out for collection with refuse instead of being sourced separated for recycling. The hearing officer rejected respondent’s service challenge and claim that the building superintendent separated all garbage from recyclables. On appeal, respondent reiterated the hearing arguments. The appellate decision dismissed the summons, finding that it cited a non-existent section of law in that § 16-308.1 is found in the New York City Administrative Code, not in the Rules of the City of New York. DSNY v. 286 F.W Inc., Appeal No. 2600416 (May 28, 2026).

An appellate decision reversed a hearing decision sustaining a charge of New York City Administrative Code § 19-506(b)(1) for picking up passengers for hire in New York City in a vehicle not licensed by the Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC). Petitioner’s case rested on the affirmed statement in the summons that the issuing officer observed, “prior to stop,” respondent drop off three passengers, and “upon stop,” one passenger stated respondent was a taxi that picked them up at LaGuardia Airport for a “package” fare. At the hearing, respondent contended that the issuing officer did not have reasonable suspicion of unlicensed for-hire activity, required before a stop is allowed, as two inspectors simultaneously stopped respondent’s vehicle and interviewed the passengers for evidence of for-hire activity. The hearing officer sustained the violation, finding that the summons was “clear enough” that respondent was stopped after the passengers exited the vehicle. The appellate decision found that TLC did not have reasonable suspicion because, at best, the inspecting officer’s use of the word “stop” on the summons was ambiguous as to whether it meant an enforcement stop, a stop of the passengers, dropping off passengers, or something else, and that the ambiguity must be resolved against petitioner, who has the burden of proving reasonable suspicion once raised by respondent. TLC v. Michael, B, Hubilla, Appeal No. 73221854A (May 8, 2026).