OATH Recent Decisions

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

Personnel

ALJ Kevin F. Casey recommended a 24-day suspension for a housekeeping aide who disobeyed orders to remove his gloves on two occasions and failed to wear his uniform shirt on four occasions. Respondent works at a post-acute care facility where the infectious disease control policies require proper glove use. Respondent testified that his practice was to dispose of his soiled gloves after putting trash in a wheeled bin and to put on a clean pair of gloves before pushing the bin into the hallway. Crediting the testimony of respondent’s former supervisor, the ALJ found that on two occasions, respondent failed to obey direct orders to remove his gloves. However, the ALJ also found that petitioner did not prove that respondent failed to remove or change his soiled gloves on three occasions “as previously directed,” noting that petitioner’s policies and training materials do not explicitly prohibit employees from wearing plastic gloves in the hallways. In addition, even if respondent was seen wearing gloves in the hallway, there was no proof that the gloves were soiled at the time he was observed wearing them. Lastly, the ALJ found that the evidence proved that respondent was provided with new uniform shirts but failed to wear the shirts on the dates specified, as required. Noting that respondent modified his behavior and has complied with directives regarding uniforms and safety procedures in the two years since he was charged, the ALJ recommended a suspension of 24 days with credit for the suspension already served. Health & Hospitals/Coler v. Tindal, OATH Index No. 367/25 (Mar. 5, 2026).

Licensing

ALJ Seon Jeong Lee recommended lifting the license suspension of a TLC-licensed driver who was arrested for assault in the third degree in connection with an on-duty incident involving a passenger. The criminal complaint alleged that, in March 2025, respondent “slammed the car door” on the passenger’s ankle causing her “substantial pain.” Respondent was arrested in February 2026, approximately 11 months after the alleged incident. Respondent testified that on the day of the incident, he had driven the passenger to her requested drop-off location but that upon arrival, the passenger insisted that the drop-off location was incorrect and repeatedly refused to exit the car. Respondent denied slamming the car door on complainant's ankle and stated that the passenger eventually agreed to leave after speaking to a passerby whom respondent had flagged down for assistance. Respondent submitted a video recording of his interaction with the passenger which largely corroborated his version of events. Although noting that respondent could have conducted himself differently in his interactions with passenger, the ALJ found significant mitigating evidence in respondent's virtually spotless driving record over his ten-year history as a licensee, the 11-month period between the incident and respondent's arrest in which respondent continued to drive without incident, and the lack of evidence of any serious injury to the passenger. Thus, the ALJ found that this incident appeared to be an aberration in an otherwise law-abiding life and that respondent’s continued licensure did not pose a direct and substantial threat to public safety. Taxi & Limousine Comm’n v. Memeh, OATH Index No. 1480/26 (Mar. 23, 2026), adopted, Comm’r Dec. (Mar. 26, 2026).

Vehicle Seizure

ALJ Michael D. Turilli determined that the Police Department may retain a vehicle seized as an alleged instrumentality of a crime where the driver, the owner of the vehicle, was arrested for driving while intoxicated. As a preliminary matter, respondent moved to dismiss the petition for inadequate notice as the written notice he received of his right to a retention hearing was not in French, his primary language, which he argued violated both the Krimstock Order and section 23-1102 of the Administrative Code. The ALJ denied the motion. While recognizing the importance of providing access to justice for individuals with limited English proficiency, the ALJ noted that the express terms of the Krimstock Order cannot be construed to require that notice be provided in primary languages other than English and Spanish. Moreover, even if the notice violated the language access provisions of the Administrative Code, such violation would not require release of the vehicle. The ALJ found that probable cause existed for the arrest given that respondent exhibited signs of alcohol intoxication, possessed empty beer bottles in the vehicle, and had a blood alcohol content of twice the legal limit. The ALJ also found that petitioner was likely to prevail in a civil forfeiture action as the evidence established that respondent drove the vehicle while intoxicated. Lastly, the ALJ found that releasing the vehicle to respondent would pose a heightened risk to public safety as respondent was significantly intoxicated upon his arrest, and that such risk was further aggravated by respondent’s conviction four years earlier for driving while ability impaired by the consumption of alcohol. Police Dep’t v. Nongpanga, OATH Index No. 1530/26, mem. dec. (Mar. 31, 2026).