OATH Recent Decisions

To subscribe to receive the monthly BenchNOTES newsletter by email, click here.

Personnel

ALJ Christine Stecura recommended a 60-day suspension without pay for a Park Supervisor who sexually harassed a coworker while on duty. Petitioner, the Department of Parks and Recreation, established that while the complainant was eating lunch, respondent began to rub her arm and leg. When the complainant stood up and asked respondent what he was doing, respondent asked to touch her breasts. The ALJ credited the complainant’s testimony regarding the incident, which was corroborated by her supervisor and incident reports. The ALJ found that respondent’s conduct constituted sexual harassment and conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline in the workplace. In assessing the appropriate penalty, the ALJ found that while respondent's conduct was troubling and disruptive and caused the complainant emotional distress, termination was not warranted as respondent's conduct was neither pervasive nor especially egregious and respondent's disciplinary history, although significant, did not involve prior instances of sexual harassment. Accordingly, the ALJ recommended that respondent be suspended for 60 days without pay. Dep’t of Parks & Recreation v. Dunnell, OATH Index No. 1140/26 (June 12, 2026), adopted, Comm’r Dec. (June 29, 2026).

Licensing and Registration

ALJ Seon Jeong Lee recommended continuing the license suspension of a TLC driver charged with assault in the third degree. According to the arrest and complaint reports, while on duty, respondent nearly struck the complainant with his TLC-licensed vehicle. Respondent then exited the vehicle and punched the complainant, causing him to fall to the ground. At trial, respondent did not testify, but denied the allegations in the police reports, arguing that they were double hearsay and unreliable. The ALJ rejected this argument, noting that this tribunal has previously credited contemporaneously recorded statements by complainants in police reports when they give reliable context to the incident underlying the arrest. Absent credible mitigating evidence, the ALJ found that respondent’s unprovoked violent act against a member of the public, which occurred on-duty and without provocation, established that respondent posed a direct and substantial threat to public safety. As such, the ALJ recommended continuing the suspension. Taxi & Limousine Comm’n v. Alonzo, OATH Index No. 2084/26 (June 9, 2026), adopted, Comm’r Dec. (July 9, 2026).

ALJ Tiffany Hamilton recommended penalties against an employment agency for violations of the New York General Business Law and the New York City Administrative Code. Petitioner alleged that respondent illegally charged advance fees, failed to return advance fees to three consumers upon request, issued receipts that did not include the mandatory disclaimer language, failed to provide at least 20 consumers with a statement of employee rights and employer obligations and a statement of job conditions, and published advertisements that did not include its license number. The ALJ found that petitioner proved that respondent illegally collected advance fees on 678 occasions, failed to return advance fees to one consumer, and issued 678 receipts that failed to include the mandatory disclaimer language. However, the ALJ found that petitioner failed to prove that respondent did not provide 20 consumers with a statement of employee rights and employer obligations, or a statement of job conditions. Petitioner also failed to prove that respondent published advertisements without its license number. The ALJ recommended a total civil penalty of $865,200 and the creation of a restitution fund in the amount of $31,857.50 but declined to revoke respondent’s already-expired license. Dep’t of Consumer and Worker Protection v. Golden Rose Employment Agency, OATH Index No. 2231/25 (June 15, 2026).

Vehicle Seizure

ALJ Michael D. Turilli determined that the Police Department may retain a vehicle seized as an alleged instrumentality of a crime. Respondent raised as an affirmative defense that petitioner failed to send him notice of the hearing date within two business days of receipt of his demand for a hearing and argued that the petition must consequently be dismissed. The ALJ denied the motion to dismiss, finding that petitioner’s affidavit of mailing established by a preponderance of the credible evidence that the notice was timely mailed within the two-day requirement of the Krimstock Order. Respondent presented the envelope for the notice of hearing that was postmarked two days after the date on the affidavit and had been received by his attorney a week before the scheduled hearing date. The ALJ found that the post-marked envelope was insufficient to undermine the veracity of the affidavit and establish that notice was untimely. The ALJ further held that even if the mailing of the notice was untimely, it would constitute harmless error as petitioner nonetheless afforded respondent the opportunity to be heard in a timely manner within the ten business days required under the Krimstock Order. On the merits, the ALJ found that probable cause existed to arrest respondent on an outstanding warrant, pursuant to which a firearm was lawfully recovered from his person, that respondent used the vehicle as the instrumentality of a crime by possessing the firearm in the vehicle, and that the circumstances of the firearm offense presented a heighted risk to public safety. Police Dep’t v. Cromwell, OATH Index No. 2251/26, mem. dec. (June 25, 2026).

Contracts

The Contract Dispute Resolution Board, chaired by ALJ Hanchun Lin, denied in part and granted in part claims brought by contractor on behalf of a subcontractor against the Department of Design and Construction (“DDC”) concerning contracts for the rehabilitation, elevation, and reconstruction of homes damaged by Hurricane Sandy. In two consolidated petitions filed on the subcontractor’s behalf by the project’s contractor, the subcontractor challenged DDC’s recoupment of previously issued mobilization payments and assessments of credits for the alleged non-performance of five line items of work. The Board found that the subcontractor’s mobilization claim was time-barred as the Notice of Dispute was not submitted to DDC within 30 days of receiving the disputed determination. The Board further found that the subcontractor failed to establish a contractual entitlement to the mobilization payments and produce reliable evidence substantiating the claimed costs. As to DDC’s assessment of credits for alleged non-performance, the Board found that the subcontractor was entitled to payment on two of the five disputed line items, but denied relief for the remainder of the work due to the subcontractor’s failure to substantiate the hours it worked and non-compliance with the method of work prescribed by the contract. LiRo Program & Construction Management, PE P.C. (o/b/o Navesink Prestige LLC) v. Dep’t of Design & Construction, OATH Index Nos. 1426/24 & 1427/24, mem. dec. (June 24, 2026).