BenchNOTES Newsletter

OATH News

Job opportunities at OATH: OATH Trials Division is seeking recent law school graduates for the position of Law Clerk. Working directly with OATH’s Administrative Law Judges, Law Clerks engage in legal research and writing on cases involving 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.

This position promotes access to justice in New York City. For more details visit https://cityjobs.nyc.gov/ and search for Job ID 769774 (Law Clerk).

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

50-Day Suspension Recommended.

ALJ Seon Jeong Lee recommended a 50-day suspension after finding that a correction officer engaged in misconduct by possessing an unauthorized electronic device and submitting a false or misleading report about the incident. Dep’t of Correction v. Gairy, OATH Index No. 2043/25 (Dec. 11, 2025), adopted, Comm’r Dec. (Feb. 18, 2026).

Licensing

Lifting of license suspension recommended.

ALJ Orlando Rodriguez recommended lifting the license suspension of a TLC-licensed driver arrested for assault for an off-duty domestic incident. Taxi & Limousine Comm’n v. Uddin, OATH Index No. 1051/26 (Jan. 2, 2026), adopted, Comm’r Dec. (Jan. 6, 2026).

Vehicle Seizure

Police Department may not retain a seized vehicle.

ALJ Jonathan Fogel ordered the release of a vehicle seized by the Police Department to the respondent’s fiancée finding that return of the vehicle would not pose a heightened risk to public safety. Police Dep’t v. Cunningham, OATH Index No. 569/26, mem. dec. (Dec. 11, 2025).

Appeals from the Hearings Division

An appellate decision reversed a hearing decision sustaining a Class 2 violation § 28-302.5 of the New York City Administrative Code for failure to file acceptable amended façade inspection reports showing correction of unsafe conditions described in initial façade inspection reports filed for three prior cycles. At the hearing, respondent submitted evidence that its building was six stories in height and therefore exempt from the requirements of the Façade Inspection Safety Program (FISP). The petitioner argued that even if respondent had filed the initial façade inspection reports in error, it was still required to file amended reports. The hearing officer agreed and sustained the charge. The appellate decision found that respondent’s unrefuted evidence established that its building was not subject to the façade inspection requirements and respondent was exempt from filing amended reports. DOB v. K & V Rlty Corp, Appeal No. 2501334 (December 18, 2025).

An appellate decision affirmed a hearing decision sustaining a Class 2 violation of the New York City Administrative Code § 28 210.1 for alteration of a residence for occupancy by more than the legally approved number of families by creating an additional apartment in the cellar. At the hearing, petitioner submitted the certificate of occupancy showing that the premises was legally approved as a single-family home. Respondent claimed that she purchased the property as a two-family dwelling that included the cellar apartment, relying on the deed and other records that referred to the property as a two-family residence. The hearing officer found that respondent had not established a defense, as the deed is a private contract that cannot change the legal occupancy of a property and the certificate of occupancy was the controlling document. The appellate decision agreed, noting that respondent did not show that the premises was legally approved as a two-family dwelling and that pre-existing conditions prior to her ownership was not a defense to this charge. DOB v. Sita Ugbomah Ragbir, Appeal No. 2501337 (December 18, 2025).

An appellate decision affirmed part of a hearing decision that sustained a violation of § 3.15(a) of the New York City Health Code for interfering with or obstructing an inspection. At the hearing, respondent, a mobile food vending unit vendor, denied the charge asserting that he had cooperated with the inspecting officers, but that the officers failed to follow proper procedures and threatened and harassed him, after which he drove away. An inspecting officer testified that when he arrived at the vending unit, respondent and another inspecting officer were already exchanging heated words. Respondent drove off after they asked him to stay so they could conduct the inspection. The hearing officer credited the investigating officer’s testimony and the affirmed statements in the summons. On appeal, respondent argued that obstruction requires a willful act, and his actions were based on fear and confusion, and that the criminal charges for the same incident were dropped. The appellate decision affirmed the hearing decision finding that it was undisputed that respondent drove away from the officers who were conducting an inspection and requested respondent stay at the site. It further found that intent was not required to prove a violation of the statute and dismissal of the criminal charges arising from the same incident was not a basis for dismissal. DSNY v. Basam M. Barghash, Appeal No. 2501237 (December 18, 2025).

An appellate decision reversed a hearing decision sustaining a Class 2 violation § 28-118.3.2 of the New York City Administrative Code for occupancy in a manner contrary to that allowed by Department of Buildings records. Petitioner’s case rested on undisputed evidence that the premises, a two-family dwelling, was occupied as a group home with 11 beds. The hearing officer found that the arrangement of 11 beds for unrelated individuals was not consistent with the legal occupancy of the premises as a two-family dwelling. On appeal, respondent argued that the premises was occupied as a two-family dwelling, with an adult maintaining a common household with four or five children in each apartment. Noting that the Building Code defined a “family” as members of a group home, the appellate decision found that the use of the premises as an 11-bed group home was not contrary to its legal occupancy as a two-family dwelling, defined as any building designed and occupied for long-term residence purposes by not more than two families. DOB v. The Rita Cohen Irrevocable Tru, Appeal No. 2501500 (January 29, 2026).

An appellate decision affirmed a hearing decision sustaining a violation of § 20-51 of Title 16 of the Rules of the City of New York for failure of a commercial waste carter to operate a vehicle in a safe manner. At the hearing, petitioner presented testimony of officers who had issued respondent four summonses for violations of the New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law (“VTL”) during a three month period. Respondent argued that convictions of the VTL violations were required to establish a pattern of unsafe practices to sustain the violation. The hearing officer found that the officers’ testimony sufficed to establish the violation. The appellate decision found that the officers’ affirmed statements in the summons established petitioner’s case, supplemented by witness testimony and evidence. The appellate decision found that the officers’ established the violation by a preponderance of the evidence, the standard applicable to OATH violations, and that the clear and convincing evidentiary standard required for VTL violations was inapplicable. DSNY v. MRT BWR Corp., Appeal No. 2501526 (January 29, 2026).

An appellate decision affirmed hearing decisions dismissing eleven violations of New York City Administrative Code § 24-112(b) for unlawful reproduction or alteration of documents. Petitioner’s case rested on undisputed evidence that on eleven separate instances, respondent’s vehicle bore a sticker stating, “Armored truck exempt from NYC Idling regulations.” At the hearing, petitioner asserted that only it was authorized to make stickers recognizing exemptions from idling regulations. The hearing officer dismissed the charge, finding that a private sticker or placard did not fall within the terms of the statute. The appellate decision found that the sticker did not bear petitioner’s insignia or any other indication that it was an official document, the making, reproduction, or alteration of which is prohibited by § 24-112(b). DEP v. Rapid Armor, Appeal No. 2501352 (January 29, 2026).