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

30-Day suspension recommended.

ALJ Michael D. Turilli recommended a 30-day suspension without pay for respondent, an Office of the Chief Medical Examiner motor vehicle operator. Office of Chief Medical Examiner v. Rheams, OATH Index No. 262/25 (Apr. 11, 2025).

Real Property

Granting protected occupancy application recommended.

ALJ Seon Jeong Lee recommended granting petitioner’s application for protected occupancy status after finding that petitioner used the interim multiple dwelling unit as his primary residence. Matter of Richmond, OATH Index No. 524/24 (Apr. 22, 2025).

Contracts

Contractor’s petition dismissed.

The Contract Dispute Resolution Board, chaired by ALJ Kevin F. Casey, dismissed a contractor’s request for additional compensation under a contract with the Department of Design and Construction for costs associated with excavating and removing debris from a sewer. D’Onofrio General Contractors Corp. v. Dep’t of Design & Construction, OATH Index No. 3554/24, mem. dec. (Apr. 16, 2025).

Appeals from the Hearings Division

An appeals decision reversed a hearing decision that sustained a charge under the Administrative Code for improper receptacle of refuse. In the summons, the issuing officer affirmed observing refuse placed for collection in front of respondent’s residential premises in bags instead of rigid containers with tight fitting lids. At the hearing, respondent claimed that the bags were placed out by a neighbor while respondent was away, which the Hearing Officer did not credit. On appeal, respondent reiterated that a neighbor placed the bags out and petitioner did not answer the appeal. The appeals decision reversed, noting that per 16 RCNY § 1-02.5 (b), all buildings other than residential buildings containing ten or more dwelling units must set out any refuse at the curb for collection in rigid receptacles with tight fitting lids. Petitioner failed to establish that respondent violated the rule because the summons did not identify the number of dwelling units at the premises and it was unclear whether the requirement of rigid containers applied to the premises. DSNY v. Levit Marina, Appeal No. 2500331 (Apr. 24, 2025).

An appeals decision reversed a hearing decision that sustained a Class 1 violation of 1 RCNY § 103-16 for respondent’s alleged failure to submit an initial observation report for a parking structure by August 1, 2024. At the hearing, respondent conceded that the initial observation report had not been timely filed but challenged the Class 1 designation of the charge, arguing that the summons did not identify an unsafe condition, a requirement for a Class 1 violation. The hearing officer sustained the charge, finding that respondent’s failure to file the initial observation report by the deadline was immediately hazardous because it prevented petitioner from timely ascertaining whether potentially unsafe conditions needed to be addressed. On appeal, respondent reiterated its class challenge, and the petitioner did not answer the appeal. The appeals decision reversed, noting that while petitioner’s penalty schedule in effect on the date of the violation did not include a penalty specifically for failure to file a parking structure initial observation report, the penalty schedule effective February 15, 2025, classifies the failure to submit a parking structure condition assessment report as a Class 2 violation. The appeals decision also rejected petitioner’s justification for the class designation because there are other regulatory requirements for monitoring the conditions of the parking structure and the observation report is not the primary mechanism for protecting the public from unsafe conditions. DOB v. 64-05 34th Avenue LLC, Appeal No. 2500334 (Apr. 24, 2025).

An appeals decision affirmed a hearing decision that sustained a violation of New York City Administrative Code § 16-119 for illegal dumping. In the summons, respondent, a vehicle operator, was charged with illegally dumping approximately 1 cubic yard of furniture, cardboard boxes, and black bags from a specified vehicle without a permit. At the hearing, respondent testified that he let his brother borrow his car but did not know his brother was going to use it to dump the cited materials. The hearing officer found that respondent had not established a valid defense and sustained the charge. On appeal, respondent argued that his brother was also issued a violation for the same act of illegal dumping, which was “double jeopardy.” Petitioner did not answer the appeal. The appeals decision affirmed the charge, finding that that the operator and owner of a vehicle used for illegal dumping can both be charged under Administrative Code § 16-119. The appeals decision also noted that Administrative Code § 16-119(a) makes it unlawful for “any person . . . to suffer or permit” debris being transported in a vehicle to be dumped upon any street or public place, and that Administrative Code § 16-119(c)(1) specifies penalties for which the owner of the vehicle used in the illegal dumping is liable. The decisions concluded that under the statute, each person committing the act of dumping and each person assisting or permitting such act may be separately charged with a violation of Administrative Code § 16-119. DSNY v. Morales, Patricio, Appeal No. 2500348 (Apr. 24, 2025).