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

Dismissal of charges recommended.

ALJ Michael D. Turilli recommended dismissal of charges against respondent, a communications manager in the Office of Student Pathways, after petitioner, Department of Education, failed to prove that respondent engaged in misconduct. Dep’t of Education v. Modesto, OATH Index No. 2509/25 (Apr. 24, 2026).

Contracts

Contractor’s petition dismissed.

The Contract Dispute Resolution Board, chaired by ALJ Christine Stecura, denied or dismissed a contractor’s claims for additional compensation under a contract with the Department of Design and Construction for elevator modernization at a Queens courthouse. Knightsbridge Construction Corp. v. Dep’t of Design & Construction, OATH Index No. 1368/25, mem. dec. (Apr. 1, 2026).

Appeals from the Hearings Division

An appellate decision reversed a hearing decision sustaining two violations of § 16-119 of the New York City Administrative Code for illegal dumping. Petitioner’s case rested on the affirmed statements in the summonses, issued to the vehicle owner and vehicle operator, respectively, supplemented by hearing evidence, that the vehicle operator dumped two plastic bags and some wood into a third party’s private dumpster. On appeal, as at the hearing, respondents argued that disposing of waste in a dumpster was not illegal dumping within the meaning of the cited statute. In interpreting the statute, the appellate decision applied the doctrine of ejusdem generis (of the same kind, class, or nature) finding that the open areas enumerated in the statute where dumping was prohibited were sufficiently different from a closed container and concluding that § 16-119 does not apply to the disposal of waste into a private dumpster. DOB v. Deblasi, Carri L & Deblasi, Joseph, Anthony, Appeal No. 2600266 (April 30, 2026).

An appellate decision affirmed part of a hearing decision sustaining violations of § 5-37 of Title 6 of the Rules of the City of New York, for failing to conspicuously post a refund policy, and § 20-840(b) of the New York City Administrative Code, for refusing to accept cash payment for retail goods or services, at respondent’s store. On appeal, respondent maintained that enforcement of the cited provisions of law was preempted by federal law, arguing the preemption clause of the Airline Deregulation Act barred the charges because they are “related to a price, route, or service of an air carrier.” The appellate decision found that while preemption applied to respondent’s shipping services, it did not apply to the sale of merchandise that was readily available from another non-carrier source and was not a service uniquely available from an air or motor carrier. The appellate decision reversed part of the hearing decision regarding respondent’s sale of shipping services finding that these services are “solidly” a service respondent offers as a federally certified air carrier. DCWP v. FedEx, Appeal No. 24Q02689 (April 28, 2026).

An appellate decision reversed a hearing decision dismissing three charges of § 24-163 of the New York City Administrative Code for causing or permitting a bus to idle at a terminal point. Petitioner’s case rested on the summonses, each alleging that a bus was idling for less than three minutes at a terminal point. At the hearing, at which petitioner did not appear, respondent argued that a prima facie case had not been established because there was no evidence that the bus was idling for more than three minutes or that the temperature was over 40°F on the date of violation. The hearing officer dismissed the summonses based on respondent’s arguments. The appellate decision found that the statute prohibits a bus from idling at a terminal point for any length of time, unless the temperature is 40°F or lower, when a bus is permitted to idle for up to three minutes. The appellate decision further found that a temperature of 40°F or less was an affirmative defense that respondent had the burden to prove, not an element of the charge. DEP v. NJ Transit Corp., Appeal No. 2600268 (April 30, 2026).