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 758404 (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

30-Day Suspension Recommended.

ALJ Kevin F. Casey recommended a 30-day suspension after finding that a correction officer submitted a false, misleading, inaccurate, or incomplete report regarding a colleague’s use of force. Dep’t of Correction v. Parvez, OATH Index No. 2545/25 (Oct. 10, 2025).

Licensing

Lifting of license suspension recommended.

ALJ Seon Jeong Lee recommended lifting the suspension of respondent, a taxi driver, after he was arrested for an off-duty incident. Taxi & Limousine Comm’n v. Fazal, OATH Index No. 431/26 (Oct. 15, 2025), adopted, Comm’r Dec. (Oct. 20, 2025).

Appeals from the Hearings Division

An appellate decision reversed a hearing decision sustaining a violation § 16-118(2)(a) of the New York City Administrative Code for a dirty area. In the summons, the issuing officer affirmed observing, at 7:56 a.m., a large accumulation of debris in the side yard of respondent’s residential property during the “established routing hour of 7:00 a.m. to 7:59 a.m.” The hearing officer found that the respondent’s claim that only a bag of rocks for landscaping was in the side yard did not refute the charge. The appellate decision dismissed the charge, finding that per Administrative Code § 16-118.1(a), a violation for a dirty area at a residence can only be issued during the residential routing hours of 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. DSNY v. The Angela Genova Irrevocable Trust, Appeal No. 2501160 (Oct. 30, 2025).

An appellate decision affirmed a hearing decision dismissing a violation of § 3301.9 of the New York City Building Code issued to a property owner for posting an unlawful sign on a sidewalk shed. At the hearing, respondent submitted an alteration permit issued to a general contractor, valid on the date of occurrence, and argued that the permit holder was responsible under the cited statute for the unlawful sign. The appellate decision agreed with the hearing officer’s finding that the respondent was an improper party, as the cited statute makes the building owner responsible for the unlawful sign only where there is no active permit, and rejected petitioner’s argument that the owner was responsible where no active work under the permit was being performed. DOB v. Kern 211 LLC, Appeal No. 2501130 (Oct. 30, 2025).

An appellate decision reversed a hearing decision sustaining a Class 1 violation of § 28-301.1 of the New York City Administrative Code issued for a lack of ADA signage at the steps and ramp leading to a shopping center. At the hearing, respondent did not dispute the lack of required signage for persons with disabilities but challenged the classification of the violation, arguing that a prominent and visible ramp was located next to the steps. The appellate decision reversed the hearing officer’s decision, finding that the violating condition was not immediately hazardous based on the close proximity of the prominent accessible ramp to the steps. DOB v. VNO Bruckner Plaza LLC, Appeal No. 2501120 (Oct. 30, 2025).