OATH Recent Decisions

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

Personnel

ALJ Astrid B. Gloade recommended termination of employment for a respiratory therapist who left a patient’s ventilator on standby mode for 30 minutes, thereby depriving the patient of oxygen, and falsified an entry into the patient’s medical records. Petitioner alleged that respondent engaged in misconduct by failing to switch the patient’s bedside ventilator from “standby” to “active” mode and falsely documenting in a ventilation flow sheet that the patient was connected to the ventilator in their room when the patient was in the dialysis unit. Noting that respondent admitted in a written statement that she failed to switch the patient’s bedside ventilator on, the ALJ found that respondent’s negligence constituted misconduct. Respondent also failed to offer any evidence to rebut the charge that she falsified the ventilation flow sheet, and the ALJ found that petitioner established that respondent knowingly misrepresented her activities. While respondent was a long-time employee and had no prior disciplinary history, the ALJ determined the termination was the appropriate penalty given the egregious nature of the proven misconduct and petitioner’s significant interests in providing competent care to its patients and ensuring the accuracy of patient records. Health & Hospitals Corp. (Henry J. Carter Specialty Hospital & Nursing Facility) v. Augustin, OATH Index No. 334/26 (Feb. 6, 2026).

ALJ Michael D. Turilli recommended dismissal of charges against respondent, an emergency medical technician (“EMT”) in the Bureau of Emergency Medical Services (“EMS”), after petitioner, Fire Department (“FDNY”), failed to prove that respondent engaged in misconduct. Petitioner alleged that four posts respondent displayed on his personal Facebook account in April 2023 contained offensive gender-based content in violation of its Social Media Policy, EEO Policy, and Code of Conduct. Noting that respondent did not identify himself as an EMT or an FDNY employee on his personal Facebook account, the posted content did not directly relate to respondent’s employment, and there was no evidence that any of respondent’s co-workers viewed or were likely to view the posts, the ALJ held that there was an insufficient nexus between respondent’s off-duty conduct and his employment as an EMT to establish misconduct. The ALJ found that the First Amendment protected respondent’s online speech from discipline. The ALJ further found that respondent’s posts related to matters of public concern, in that they touched upon issues of gender identity, public education, and diversity; however, there was insufficient evidence to establish the potential for a hostile work environment at the FDNY or disruption to the public perception of EMS. Accordingly, the ALJ dismissed the charges. Fire Dep’t v. Neese, OATH Index No. 520/26 (Feb. 25, 2026).

ALJ Michael D. Turilli recommended termination of employment for a correction officer who engaged in undue familiarity by facilitating the transfer of contraband between detainees. At the request of another correction officer, respondent delivered items—a box on one occasion and an envelope on the other—to the same detainee twice within three days. The surveillance video showed that the items had originated with another detainee in a restricted housing area. Respondent admitted to transferring the items from the other correction officer on both occasions but denied having knowledge of their origin. Drawing on circumstantial evidence, including respondent’s surreptitious retrieval and delivery of the items captured on video, the concealment of his actions on official logbooks, and an audio recording between the detainees, the ALJ found that respondent knew that the box and the envelope had come from a detainee in the restricted housing area and that respondent knowingly transported the contraband to another housing area. The ALJ found respondent’s denial of knowledge to be uncorroborated, self-serving, and not credible. The ALJ recommended termination of employment, finding that neither respondent’s disciplinary history nor the lack of evidence regarding the contents of the box and envelope warranted a lesser penalty. Dep’t of Correction v. Polidor, OATH Index No. 219/26 (Feb. 13, 2026).

Licensing

ALJ Jonathan Fogel recommended continuing the license suspension of a TLC licensee arrested for driving while intoxicated, driving while ability impaired by the consumption of alcohol, and leaving the scene of a personal injury accident. According to the criminal complaint, respondent twice sideswiped the complainant’s motor vehicle, with the second incident causing the door of the motor vehicle to injure a 12-year-old child. The responding police officer noted that respondent displayed signs of intoxication such as a flushed face, watery bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and the smell of alcohol on his breath. Respondent told the officer that he had consumed three alcoholic beverages. Respondent offered his 4.6-star Lyft rating and a handwritten character letter as mitigation. Noting that the tribunal has repeatedly recommended continuing TLC license suspensions for charges involving driving under the influence of alcohol, the ALJ found that respondent’s mitigating evidence was insufficient to overcome the risk to public safety. Accordingly, the ALJ found that petitioner demonstrated that respondent’s continued licensure would pose a direct and substantial danger to the public and recommended continuing the suspension of respondent’s TLC driver license. Taxi & Limousine Comm’n v. Singh, OATH Index No. 619/26 (Feb. 9, 2026), adopted, Comm’r Dec. (Feb. 24, 2026).

Real Property

ALJ Christine Stecura recommended rescission of a certificate of no harassment (“CONH”) for a mixed-use building, finding that the owner harassed the building’s single room occupancy (“SRO”) tenants after the CONH was granted, and that no substantial work had commenced on the premises at the time the harassment took place. The ALJ found that the owner harassed the SRO tenants by failing to restore shared facilities and by failing to provide the correct number of water closets required by the Administrative Code. Although the owner argued that his failure to restore the facilities was due to structural issues with the building, he did not show that these conditions prevented him from restoring the shared facilities. The ALJ further found that the owner encouraged the SRO tenants not to complain to HPD about the building’s conditions, falsely promising to restore the facilities, to obtain the CONH. The credible evidence established that the owner committed various other acts of harassment including conducting demolition work without necessary protection, failing to provide janitorial services, failing to provide one tenant with a building key, and bringing a frivolous non-payment court action against another tenant after refusing to accept her rent. Finally, the ALJ found that at the time the harassment took place, substantial work for which the CONH had been granted had not begun. Accordingly, the ALJ found that HPD may rescind the CONH but encouraged the parties to work together to make the critical structural repairs and restore the shared facilities. Dep’t of Housing Preservation & Development v. Geylik, OATH Index No. 1984/25 (Feb. 20, 2026), adopted, Comm’r Dec. (Mar. 9, 2026).