BenchNOTES Newsletter

Overview Rules of Practice Trial Calendar Decisions

BenchNOTES Newsletter

OATH News

OATH Continuing Legal Education: The Administrative Judicial Institute will host a two-hour CLE-accredited program, on Thursday November 13, 2025, from 12:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m., entitled Rules and Ethical Issues in Administrative Proceedings Before OATH’s Trials Division. The program will be presented by Administrative Law Judges Kevin Casey, Julia Davis, Faye Lewis, and Christine Stecura. The program’s first half will provide an overview of the rules and best practices for appearing at OATH’s Trials Division. The program’s second half will review relevant sections of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct and related ethics opinions and their impact on practitioners who appear before OATH’s Trials Division. The free program will give participants 1.0 CLE credit in Areas of Professional Practice and 1.0 CLE credit in Ethics and Professionalism (transitional/non-transitional).

Pre-registration is required. Register here.

Job opportunities at OATH: OATH Trials Division is seeking a Supervising Law Clerk to head the legal research unit and oversee the Law Clerks. The Supervising Law Clerk position requires admission to the New York State Bar. Experience handling highly complex and significant legal work is a plus. Incumbents must remain members of the New York State Bar in good standing for the duration of this employment.

This position promotes access to justice in New York City. For more details visit https://cityjobs.nyc.gov/ and search for Job ID 720154 (Supervising Law Clerk).

CityAdmin Notice: The OATH decision database has moved. The CityAdmin Document Repository is now hosted by the City of New York and can be found at this link: https://nyc.mindbreeze.com/search/apps/cityadmin/.

Contract Dispute Resolution Board Panelists: OATH is accepting applications from qualified persons who would like to serve on Contract Dispute Resolution Board (CDRB) panels. CDRB panels hear the final appeal in a three-step dispute resolution process contained in City contracts for construction, goods and services. Each CDRB panel consists of an OATH Administrative Law Judge, as chair, a representative of the Mayor’s Office of Contract Services, and a third member selected from a pre-qualified roster of individuals, established and administered by OATH, who has appropriate expertise and is unaffiliated and not employed by the City.

Those interested in being added to the roster of pre-qualified individuals are encouraged to apply. Applicants should have a background and experience in government contracting, construction, engineering or related law. The application form, as well as more information on the panelist role, can be found here. Completed applications should be sent via e-mail to the OATH Trials Division Law Clerks, LawClerks@oath.nyc.gov.

Trials Division

Personnel

Termination Recommended.

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. Dep’t of Social Services (Human Resources Admin.) v. Lawrence, OATH Index No. 940/25 (Sept. 3, 2025).

Licensing

Denial of Press Credentials Upheld.

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. Mayor’s Office of Media & Entertainment v. Johnson, OATH Index No. 1837/25 (Sept. 18, 2025).

Appeals from the Hearings Division

An appellate decision reversed a hearing decision that sustained a violation of the New York City Administrative Code for work without a permit. Petitioner’s case relied on the issuing officer’s affirmed statements in the summons that on August 23, 2024, he observed a wood structure with electrical components on the ceiling, erected in front of respondent’s building without a Department of Building’s (“DOB”) permit. At the hearing, respondent asserted that the outdoor seating enclosure was erected during the COVID-19 pandemic pursuant to Emergency Executive Order 126 and approved by the Open Restaurants program. Therefore, a permit was not required, as reflected in DOB’s Operational Buildings Bulletin 2025-004, issued on April 25, 2025. Additionally, respondent argued that the Department of Transportation granted revocable consent to continue its outdoor seating enclosure, as required by Title 34 of the Rules of the City of New York. The hearing officer credited respondent’s evidence but found that respondent had not complied with the rules for outdoor dining structures, which had changed in early 2024. On appeal, respondent reiterated its hearing claims and argued that the law does not require a DOB permit for outdoor dining structures erected during the COVID-19 pandemic. Petitioner did not answer the appeal. The appellate decision reversed the hearing decision, finding that the cited outdoor dining structure, authorized under the Open Restaurants program, was exempt from permitting requirements when constructed, and there is no law retroactively requiring a permit for its erection. DOB v. 104-10 Roosevelt Avenue LLC, Appeal No. 2500988 (Sept. 25, 2025).

An appellate decision reversed a hearing decision that sustained violations of the New York City Administrative Code for use or operation of a boiler without first obtaining a registration and failure to make a heating system area readily accessible for inspection. Petitioner’s case relied on the issuing officer’s affirmed statements in the summons that respondent had failed to obtain a registration for its fuel burning equipment and had denied access to the area where the heating equipment was located on two occasions, with no response to calling cards left by the officer. At the hearing, respondent asserted that the boiler did not need to be registered because it had been capped and removed prior to the date of occurrence. Respondent provided evidence of signage posted on the vestibule wall, advising that the key to the heating system area was with the superintendent and giving his telephone number, and stating that there was no boiler or heater in the premises, as each tenant had an individual electric split unit. No one called respondent for access, and the calling cards were not found. Petitioner countered that respondent’s boiler was designated as “active,” as respondent had not taken the necessary steps to cancel the registration until after the summons was issued, at which time the request was rejected. Petitioner also argued that the signs were not readily available because they required access to the vestibule. The hearing decision found that respondent’s evidence of the boiler’s removal was insufficient, noting that petitioner had rejected its request to cancel the registration after the date of the inspection. The decision credited that an unsuccessful attempt was made to gain access to the heating system area, finding that respondent presented no evidence to show that the signage was visible to the issuing officer. On appeal, respondent reiterated its hearing claims. Petitioner did not answer the appeal. The appellate decision reversed, finding that respondent’s evidence was sufficient to show that the boiler was removed pursuant to a Department of Buildings permit before the date of the investigation, obviating the need to register the boiler. The appellate decision also found that respondent adequately presented a defense against the access violation. DEP v. 1365 Teller LLC, Appeal No. 2500395 (Sept. 25, 2025).

An appellate decision affirmed part of a hearing decision that sustained numerous violations of the Health Code. Petitioner’s case rested on the issuing officer’s affirmations in the summons, which stated that: in an infant room, the classroom was out of ratio for the infant age group by at least three, in violation of § 47.23(f)(i); several infants were crying for long periods of time, without any comfort, in violation of § 47.67(e); the education director was not on site, and the designee was a group teacher not qualified to supervise the infant and toddler program, in violation of § 47.15(a); and the education director designee was a group teacher with classroom responsibilities, which violated § 47.23(d). At the hearing, respondent submitted timesheets and attendance records to show that only seven children were in the infant room and two staff members were present. Respondent also argued that crying is not a sign of actual distress, and the summons noted that staff members were attending to the infants. Respondent further argued that the certified group teacher designated as education director was qualified to act as designee and denied that he was acting as a group teacher on the date of inspection. The hearing decision did not credit respondent’s evidence that the staff to infant ratio was met, found that crying was a sign of distress, and that the education director designee was not qualified to supervise the infant and toddler program since he was only certified to teach other grades. On appeal, respondent reiterated the hearing claims. Petitioner did not answer the appeal. In sustaining the charges of § 47.23(f)(i) and § 47.67(e), the appellate decision deferred to the hearing officer’s credibility findings and found that it was reasonable to determine that when an infant cries, it is distressed within the meaning of the statute and that because the minimum staff to infant ratio was not met, it was not a defense that two staff members were attending to the infants. In sustaining the § 47.15(a) charge, the appellate decision found that an education director designee of an infant/toddler program must have prior infant/toddler classroom experience. Finally, the appellate decision dismissed the violation of § 47.23(d), finding that the summons for this charge failed to establish a prima facie case. DOHMH v. Saag Astoria Inc., Appeal No. 03991-25D0 (Sept. 12, 2025).