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 Kevin F. Casey recommended dismissal of the disciplinary charges against a probation officer. Dep’t of Probation v. Rivers, OATH Index No. 767/25 (Mar. 24, 2025).

Licensing

Imposition of civil penalty and restitution recommended.

Chief ALJ Asim Rehman recommended imposing $1,642,500 in civil penalties and $2,255 in restitution against an employment agency for illegally collecting advance fees from customers, failing to refund advance fees, and providing documents that did not comply with legal requirements. Dep’t of Consumer & Worker Protection v. CMP Employment Agency Corp., OATH Index No. 3574/24 (Mar. 27, 2025).

Real Property

Granting protected occupancy application recommended.

ALJ Astrid B. Gloade recommended granting a tenant’s application for protected occupancy status after finding that the tenant’s building was entitled to Loft Law protection as an interim multiple dwelling, and the tenant’s unit was covered under those protections. Matter of Assante, OATH Index Nos. 390/22 & 391/22 (Mar. 14, 2025).

Human Rights

Dismissal of charges recommended.

ALJ Kara J. Miller recommended dismissal of a gender discrimination claim against a nightclub that petitioner alleged denied a woman entry because she was pregnant. Comm’n of Human Rights ex rel. Santana v. 417 W. Inc., OATH Index No. 1701/21 (Mar. 14, 2025).

Appeals from the Hearings Division

An appeals decision reversed part of a hearing decision that sustained a violation of the Health Code against respondent, a food establishment, for improper drainage of liquid waste. In the summons, the issuing officer affirmed that liquid waste was not properly carried to the sewage disposal system to prevent contamination of the premises because an “indirect waste pipe” was observed extending directly down into a funnel drain under the three-compartment sink in the kitchen, which the Health Code does not permit. At the hearing, respondent testified merely that the indirect waste pipe that extended into the drain was altered to fit the summons’s specifications and submitted a photograph of correction. The Judicial Hearing Officer found that respondent admitted the violation and sustained the charge. On appeal, respondent reiterated that the violation was promptly corrected, and petitioner did not answer the appeal. The appeals decision reversed, finding that respondent’s photograph of correction depicted a drainage configuration consistent with the Plumbing Code because the cut drainpipe extended below the rim of the collecting funnel, with a strainer inserted between the drainpipe and the drainage system, creating an air break within the funnel, and that the wastewater continued afterward to the sewer. The appeals decision concluded that, insofar as the violation was based solely on the drainpipe extending below the rim of the funnel, Petitioner failed to establish a violation of the Health Code. DOHMH v. Earthly Eats Incorporated., Appeal No. 14401-24F0 (Mar. 14, 2025)

An appeals decision reversed a hearing decision sustaining violations of New York City’s Administrative Code § 20-561(a) for acting as an electronic cigarette retail dealer without a Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (“DCWP”) license, and § 17-715(b) for selling flavored electronic cigarettes or e liquid. In the summons, the issuing officer affirmed observing various electronic cigarettes and cannabinoid hemp products with names like “Grape ape” and “Strawberry diesel” for sale at respondent’s business. At the hearing, respondent asserted that it is a New York State-licensed retail seller of cannabinoid hemp products, not electronic cigarettes; DCWP does not have the authority to regulate the sale of cannabis products which are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the State Cannabis Law; and the cited hemp products do not contain any flavoring agents except terpenes, which the regulations implementing the Cannabis Law allow. The hearing decision found that a license to sell hemp products was required by Code § 20-561(a) and that the cited products were flavored electronic cigarettes per Code § 17-715(b) definitions. On appeal, respondent reiterated the hearing arguments and DCWP did not answer. The appeals decision reversed, finding that the Cannabis Law preempted DCWP’s regulation of respondent’s sale of the cited hemp products and cannabis paraphernalia, and established the States’s intent to assume full regulatory authority over the licensing and operation of retail cannabinoid hemp dispensaries. The decision also found that the Cannabis Law prohibited the City from adopting any laws pertaining to the operation or licensure of retail cannabinoid hemp dispensaries, with the exception of reasonable laws governing the time, place, and manner of their operation. The decision noted further that under the Cannabis Law, hemp-derived terpenes are excluded from flavors or flavoring agents, which conflicts with the Code definition of “flavored electronic cigarette.” DCWP v. Ming New York Holdings LLC, Appeal No. 23M00337 (Mar. 25, 2025).