OATH Recent Decisions

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

Personnel

ALJ Seon Jeong Lee recommended termination of employment for a correction officer charged with using excessive, unnecessary, or retaliatory force. The ALJ found that respondent, while escorting a rear-cuffed detainee onto a bus, pushed the detainee into a small holding pen, causing her to hit the metal grate on the bus window, resulting in serious facial injury. The ALJ rejected respondent’s argument that the force was justified and was the minimum amount necessary to defend himself from the detainee, who had kicked him in the groin and attempted to kick him again. The ALJ instead found that the force was retaliatory and excessive and not proportional to the threat, as the detainee was restrained and unable to brace herself as she fell forward. Given respondent’s disciplinary history, which included five prior instances of misconduct for use of excessive force, the ALJ found termination of respondent’s employment appropriate. Dep’t of Correction v. Young, OATH Index No. 1637/26 (May 11, 2026).

ALJ Orlando Rodriguez recommended a 60-day suspension for the deputy director of FDNY’s Emergency Medical Services Computer Aided Dispatch Program, who was charged with falsifying time records, failure to follow time and leave policies, insubordination, and discourtesy. The ALJ found that petitioner proved some of the charges related to time and leave violations, falsifying time records, and discourtesy and insubordination charges. However, the ALJ found that petitioner failed to prove charges alleging misuse of sick leave, certain time and leave violations condoned by respondent’s supervisor, and certain specifications related to a relocation dispute. Petitioner sought termination of employment, but the ALJ found the penalty excessive, given respondent’s lengthy service, including during September 11, Superstorm Sandy, and the COVID-19 pandemic, in addition to her unblemished disciplinary record, specialized expertise, and demonstrated remorse. Considering these mitigating factors and respondent’s potential for continued productive public service, the ALJ found that respondent should be afforded an opportunity to correct her behavior and recommended a 60-day suspension without pay. Fire Dep’t v. Murphy, OATH Index No. 2860/23 (May 22, 2026).

ALJ Jonathan Fogel recommended termination of employment for a sanitation worker who was absent without leave (“AWOL”) for approximately ten months. While employed by petitioner, respondent was convicted of assault in the second degree and sentenced to two years in prison. His absence from work was due to his incarceration. Respondent moved to dismiss the charge for improper service because he was not personally served in prison. However, the ALJ found that the method of service used by petitioner—certified mail at the prison where respondent is incarcerated—satisfied due process. There was no dispute that respondent had been absent from work since February 2025. The ALJ accordingly found that petitioner established the charge. Although respondent made an effort to retain his job by applying for a leave of absence, the ALJ further found that respondent’s continued absence impeded the agency’s ability to fulfill its mission and thus recommended termination. Dep’t of Sanitation v. Lumas, OATH Index No. 896/26 (May 28, 2026).

ALJ Orlando Rodriguez recommended a 30-day suspension for an executive director of Operations who engaged in unprofessional and inappropriate conduct toward a subordinate employee. Petitioner, the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS), alleged that respondent engaged in non-work-related communications with complainant and made profane, sexually charged, and disparaging remarks toward her. Petitioner also claimed that respondent solicited and ultimately engaged in inappropriate physical contact with complainant. Petitioner alleged that this course of conduct constituted sexual harassment and behavior inconsistent with the standards of professionalism required by the ACS’s Code of Conduct and the City’s Equal Employment Opportunity Policy. The ALJ found that petitioner proved that respondent engaged in multiple unprofessional communications with the complainant and participated in a workplace interaction captured on surveillance video in which he removed a cellphone protruding from complainant's side pocket before returning it to her. However, the ALJ did not find that respondent grabbed the complainant by the neck, asked her for a kiss, or made certain remarks toward her. Although the ALJ concluded that respondent violated the Code of Conduct and Equal Employment Opportunity Policy by failing to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with a subordinate employee, the ALJ did not find that respondent engaged in sexual harassment. In determining penalty, the ALJ considered the seriousness of respondent's lapses in professional judgment but also noted respondent's lengthy and distinguished career, positive employment record, and lack of disciplinary history. Finding termination disproportionate given petitioner's failure to prove the most serious allegations, the ALJ recommended a 30-day suspension without pay. Admin. for Children's Services v. Nedderman, OATH Index No. 601/25 (May 29, 2026).

Licensing and Registration

ALJ Kevin F. Casey revoked the registrations for three short-term rental units in Queens and ordered the payment of civil penalties after petitioner, the Mayor’s Office of Special Enforcement, proved that the hosts made materially false statements on their registration applications and violated multiple provisions of the rules governing short-term rentals. Drawing on the documentary evidence presented by petitioner and testimony from an investigator, the ALJ found that the hosts submitted altered documents with their registration applications, unlawfully offered short-term rentals of entire registered units to more than two guests at a time, failed to notify petitioner that they had changed their Airbnb listings to offer short-term rentals to more than two guests at a time, and failed to maintain their premises in a code-compliant manner by not providing required sprinkler and fire alarm systems. Noting that the infractions were not “honest errors or bookkeeping mistakes” but rather deliberate and repeated violations of the law and that respondents failed to offer a defense or mitigation, the ALJ ordered the payment of civil penalties of $73,900 as well as the revocation of registrations. Mayor’s Office of Special Enforcement v. Haque, Ahmed, & Haque, OATH Index Nos. 789/26, 790/26 & 850/26, mem. dec. (May 20, 2026).

Contracts

The Contract Dispute Resolution Board, chaired by ALJ Astrid B. Gloade, denied a contractor’s petition challenging a directive from the Department of Transportation to replace the West 79th Street Rotunda’s parking garage floor. The parties’ contract initially called for repairs and partial replacement of the floor, and the contractor asserted that the directive violated the contract’s prohibition of material alterations to the scope of work. As a preliminary matter, the Board rejected the Department’s argument that it lacked jurisdiction to grant the relief being sought. The Department also argued that its directive was necessary to complete the original scope of work and did not constitute a material alteration to the scope of contract work. The Board determined that the directive was necessary to complete the original scope of work, was consistent with the contract’s terms, and that the contractor failed to establish that it constituted a material alteration in the scope of work. Judlau Contracting, Inc. v. Dep’t of Transportation, OATH Index No. 981/25, mem. dec. (May 21, 2026).