OATH Recent Decisions

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

Personnel

ALJ Charlotte E. Davidson recommended termination of employment for an Eligibility Specialist with the Human Resources Administration (“HRA”), who, in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, engaged in a scheme to defraud the Small Business Administration’s (“SBA”) Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program and then failed to report her arrest for such conduct to HRA. The ALJ found that HRA established by a preponderance of the evidence that respondent was arrested for and charged with federal crimes for defrauding the SBA and that she admitted to the charged conduct under oath in federal district court as part of a deferred prosecution agreement. That off-duty conduct constituted a violation of HRA disciplinary rules. While respondent testified that she felt unwell during her sworn admission and that the deferred prosecution agreement was not explained to her, her allocution in federal court was thorough and robust. Respondent was asked about her health, the adequacy of her legal representation, whether she had read and understood her written agreement, and the substance of the conduct to which she was admitting. Further, the ALJ credited an HRA Director’s testimony that respondent did not report her arrest to the agency over respondent’s claim that she told an unnamed supervisor because respondent’s testimony was vague and self-serving. Ultimately, the ALJ found that HRA proved that respondent engaged in conduct that reflects unfavorably on her job fitness and may bring discredit to the agency because there is a clear nexus between defrauding the federal government and her job responsibilities, which include handling HRA’s clients’ sensitive personal and financial information. The ALJ recommended termination of employment, finding respondent’s lack of disciplinary history did not outweigh the seriousness of the misconduct and her demonstrated dishonesty. Dep’t of Social Services (Human Resources Admin.) v. Lawrence, OATH Index No. 940/25 (Sept. 3, 2025).

Licensing

ALJ Christine Stecura affirmed the denial by petitioner, the Mayor’s Office of Media and Entertainment, of respondent’s press credential application after finding that petitioner proved by a preponderance of the evidence that respondent failed to meet eligibility requirements. To qualify for a press credential under petitioner’s rules, applicants must submit six or more publications demonstrating that the applicant reported on six or more covered events within the previous 24 months. Respondent’s application included six photographs, four of which petitioner rejected because the contents of the photographs were not of covered events, defined under petitioner’s rules as an “emergency, spot, or breaking news event,” a “public event[] of non-emergency nature” where security barriers have been erected, or City of New York sponsored events open to the public. The ALJ rejected respondent’s argument that the events depicted in the photographs were covered events because other media outlets covered them. The ALJ determined that press coverage of an event by other members of the press is irrelevant to whether an event is considered a covered event under petitioner’s rules. Accordingly, the ALJ found that petitioner correctly determined that respondent did not meet the press credential eligibility requirements and affirmed its denial of respondent’s application. Mayor’s Office of Media & Entertainment v. Johnson, OATH Index No. 1837/25 (Sept. 18, 2025).

ALJ Charlotte E. Davidson recommended continuing the license suspension of a taxi driver arrested for grand larceny and criminal possession of stolen property. According to the complaint report, respondent was arrested after $17,000 worth of gold jewelry and cash went missing from a bedroom closet to which only complainant, who was the custodian of the property, and respondent had a key. At trial, respondent did not testify about the charges but did state that his passengers are happy and have never complained about his driving. DMV records also indicated that he had no violations or reported accidents for the eight months of his New York State licensure. Noting that this tribunal has repeatedly found a nexus between crimes involving a driver’s honesty and their responsibilities as a TLC licensee, the ALJ found that the mitigating evidence did not outweigh the gravity of the charges, especially considering respondent had only been a TLC driver for five months. Accordingly, the ALJ found that petitioner demonstrated that respondent’s continued licensure would pose a substantial and direct threat to public safety and recommended continued suspension. Taxi & Limousine Comm’n v. Majoka, OATH Index No. 327/26 (Sept. 8, 2025).