BenchNOTES Newsletter

OATH News

Job opportunities at OATH:

OATH Trial Division is seeking recent law school graduates for the position of Law Clerk. Working directly with OATH’s Administrative Law Judges, Law Clerks engage in legal research and writing on cases involving civil servant discipline, consumer and worker protection matters, taxi and rideshare licensing, contract disputes involving the city, as well as cases falling under the Campaign Finance Law, Human Rights Law, Conflict of Interest Law, and more.

OATH is also hiring a Supervising Law Clerk to head the legal research unit consisting of Law Clerks. The Supervising Law Clerk position requires admission to the New York State Bar; four years of recent full-time responsible, relevant, satisfactory legal experience following admission to any bar, 18 months of which must have been in the supervision of other attorneys, in an administrative, managerial or executive capacity. 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.

Both positions work to promote access to justice in New York City. For more details visit https://cityjobs.nyc.gov/ and search for Job ID 720154 (Supervising Law Clerk) or 720158 (Law Clerk).

Trials Division

Personnel

Termination recommended.

ALJ Astrid B. Gloade recommended termination of employment for a hospital coordinating manager who falsified time records, failed to remove expired supplies from storage areas under his supervision, and directed profanity and demeaning language towards his supervisees. Health & Hospitals Corp. (Jacobi Medical Ctr.) v. Paciullo, OATH Index No. 1963/24 (July 24, 2025).

Licensing

Petition seeking to revoke press credential dismissed.

ALJ Jonathan Fogel, in a case of first impression, dismissed a petition brought by the Mayor’s Office of Media and Entertainment (“MOME”) seeking to revoke a press credential it had previously issued. Mayor's Office of Media & Entertainment v. Brik, OATH Index No. 1679/24 (July 30, 2025).

Contracts

Contractor’s petition dismissed.

The Contract Dispute Resolution Board, chaired by ALJ Faye Lewis, denied a contractor’s request for additional compensation under a contract with the Department of Design and Construction (“DDC”) for the reconstruction of a storm sewer. D’Onofrio General Contractors Corp. v. Dep’t of Design & Construction, OATH Index No. 174/25, mem. Dec. (July 17, 2025).

Appeals from the Hearings Division

An appellate decision affirmed part of a hearing decision sustaining a violation of Title 35 of the Rules of the City of New York against respondent for failing to timely comply with petitioner’s directive. Petitioner’s case relied on allegations in the summons that respondent failed to provide proof of current insurance or proof that her vehicle was no longer operated for hire, as per petitioner’s directive. At the hearing, respondent claimed that she did not receive the directive, but the judicial hearing officer found that respondent failed to prove this defense. On appeal, respondent argued that it was petitioner’s burden to prove that the directive was received and that she had continuous insurance, which the petitioner could have verified via the Department of Motor Vehicles without need to resort to an “unconfirmed” directive. Petitioner did not answer the appeal. The appellate decision found that the certification of mailing on the directive established a presumption that the directive was received by respondent, a presumption that respondent failed to refute, and satisfied due process requirements. The appellate decision further found that it was not a defense that the respondent had proper insurance, as she was charged with failing to timely comply with the petitioner’s directive to provide adequate proof of insurance. TLC v. M D Concepciondeplnc, Appeal No. INR032981 (July 7, 2025).

An appellate decision reversed a hearing decision by dismissing a violation of § 28-301.1 of the New York City Administrative Code for improper service. In the affirmation of service, the issuing officer indicated that he served the summons using the “affix and mail” method allowed by the New York City Charter and described his reasonable but unsuccessful attempt to serve the corporate-respondent as follows: “upon service no one present from the building management to accept.” At the hearing, respondent argued that the affirmation of service was insufficient to show that the issuing officer made a reasonable attempt to personally serve the summons before resorting to “affix and mail” service, as required by the Charter. The judicial hearing officer credited the issuing officer’s affirmation of service and found that it established proper service. On appeal, respondent reiterated its service challenge, and petitioner did not file an answer. The appellate decision found that the issuing officer’s conclusory statement on the affirmation of service failed to describe how he determined no one was available and therefore was insufficient to show that he made a reasonable attempt. Accordingly, the appellate decision dismissed the summons for improper service. DOB v. Dovie Realty, Appeal No. 2500540 (July 31, 2025).

An appellate decision reversed a hearing decision dismissing a violation of § 28-105.1 of the New York City Administrative Code against respondent for work without a permit. In the summons, dated July 31, 2023, the issuing officer affirmed observing and/or verifying through a review of petitioner’s records that a Request for Corrective Action (“RCA”) had been issued on July 31, 2023 for an unpermitted gas line for a stove but that no permit had been obtained by the correction deadline, September 29, 2023. According to the issuing officer’s affirmation of service, the summons was served on May 22, 2024. At the hearing, respondent submitted documentation purporting to show that he had a permit for a gas line for a dryer, to which the stove had been connected. The judicial hearing officer found that the summons was prematurely issued in July 2023 because the RCA provided that respondent had until September 29, 2023 to correct the violating condition. On appeal, petitioner argued that the summons was not premature because it was issued after the expiration of the 60-day grace period provided by the Rules of the City of New York to correct the condition alleged on the RCA. Petitioner further argued that respondent’s evidence did not pertain to the gas line for the stove. In his answer, respondent reiterated his hearing claim. The appellate decision, as a preliminary matter, found that the summons, while dated July 31, 2023, was not issued until May 22, 2024, well after the expiration of the grace period afforded by the Rules to correct the condition described on the RCA. The appellate decision therefore concluded that the judicial hearing officer incorrectly dismissed the summons as being premature. On the merits, the decision agreed with petitioner that respondent’s evidence did not establish that the gas line for the stove was installed with a permit. DOB v. Sanz Ricardo, Appeal No. 2500479 (July 31, 2025).