BenchNOTES Newsletter

OATH News

We at OATH mark with great sadness the passing of the Honorable Donna R. Merris, a former OATH Administrative Law Judge and beloved colleague and friend. Judge Merris was born on November 25, 1939, in Bluffs, Illinois, and received degrees from Illinois State University, Northwestern University, and Brooklyn Law School. She had a diverse and illustrious career, working as a professional musician, a music educator, a prosecutor in the public corruption unit of the U. S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, an attorney for both the New York City Office of the Comptroller and the Mayor’s Office of Contracts, and an Administrative Law Judge here at OATH. Judge Merris retired from OATH to become a full-time mother to her two daughters, a role that brought her immense joy and satisfaction. Her friends and colleagues remember her as remarkably hardworking, wise, lively, possessed of a subtle wit, and passionate about music. Judge Merris is survived by her wife, Robyn, two daughters, and a granddaughter. Judge Merris’ full obituary is available 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; 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.

OATH is also seeking a lawyer to run its Pro Bono Program. The Pro Bono Counsel will help connect volunteer attorneys with low-income residents who appear before OATH to contest summonses issued by city agencies. The Counsel will also recruit new lawyers, law firms, and legal service providers to participate in the program.

Both positions 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) and Job ID 727204 (Pro Bono Counsel).

CityAdmin Notice:

Beginning September 26, 2025, OATH decisions will no longer be found on New York Law School’s website. The CityAdmin Document Repository will instead be hosted by the City of New York. The City will have a new host site for this research database. You can access this new link through the OATH website once it has launched. We appreciate your patience during this transition.

Trials Division

Featured Agency Decision

Disciplinary Charges Dismissed.

ALJ Joycelyn McGeachy-Kuls recommended dismissal of disciplinary charges against a correction officer who failed to report for duty on 15 occasions. Dep’t of Correction v. Lee, OATH Index No. 3152/24 (Apr. 4, 2025), adopted, Comm’r Dec. (Aug. 11, 2025).

Licensing

Revocation of License Recommended.

ALJ Charlotte E. Davidson recommended revocation of a respondent’s Taxi & Limousine Commission Driver License after he tested positive for cocaine at his annual TLC drug test. Taxi & Limousine Comm’n v. Ahmed, OATH Index No. 1412/25 (Aug. 21, 2025).

Real Property

Granting of Application Recommended.

ALJ Jonathan Fogel recommended granting a protected occupancy application after finding that petitioners resided in the unit with the consent of the respondent landlord and occupied the unit as their primary residence. Matter of Leddington & McAuliffe, OATH Index No. 2956/24 (Aug. 28, 2025).

Vehicle Seizure

Police Department May Retain Seized Vehicle.

ALJ Julia Davis determined that the Police Department may retain a vehicle seized as an alleged instrumentality of a crime. Police Dep’t v. Cortes, OATH Index No. 150/26 (Aug. 27, 2025).

Appeals from the Hearings Division

An appellate decision reversed a hearing decision that sustained a violation of the New York City Administrative Code on the grounds of improper service. Petitioner relied on the affirmation of service, in which the issuing officer indicated that he effectuated service using the “affix and mail” method under § 1049-a(d)(2) of the New York City Charter and described his reasonable but unsuccessful attempt to personally serve the summons as, “front entrance locked gate exp #1.” At the hearing, respondent challenged service, arguing that the affirmation of service was insufficient to show that the officer made a reasonable attempt to personally serve the summons prior to resorting to “affix and mail” service. In sustaining the violation, the hearing officer found that service was proper. On appeal, respondent reiterated the service challenge. Petitioner did not answer the appeal. The appellate decision found that the issuing officer’s conclusory statement in his affirmation of service did not establish a reasonable attempt to personally serve the summons because it failed to describe how he determined that the respondent was not present at the premises at the time of service. Accordingly, the charges were dismissed. DOB v. Bazinova, Milena, Appeal No. 2500717 (Aug. 28, 2025).

An appellate decision reversed a hearing decision dismissing a violation of § 27-3017 of the New York City Administrative Code for performing electrical work without a license. At the hearing, the hearing officer noted that the issuing officer had listed “12/19/2025,” a future date, as the date of occurrence on the summons. Petitioner argued that the mistake was not fatal as it did not affect notice to the respondent. The hearing officer dismissed the violation, finding that listing a future date as the date of occurrence rendered the summons fatally defective. On appeal, petitioner argued that an incorrect date on a summons does not require dismissal absent a showing that the defect confused or prejudiced respondent. Respondent did not answer the appeal. The appeals decision reversed, finding that the issuing officer wrote “12/19/2023” as the date of occurrence, which was consistent with the date of service listed by the officer on the affirmation of service. The appeals decision also stated that even if the year could be read as “2025,” this did not render the summons defective unless a showing of confusion or prejudice was demonstrated, which was not shown here. DOB v. Changkun Zhang, Appeal No. 2500860 (Aug. 28, 2025).

An appellate decision reversed in part a hearing decision dismissing three violations of Title 35 of the Rules of the City of New York for being discourteous to a passenger; for threatening, harassing, or abusing any person; and for failing to comply with a passenger’s reasonable request. The hearing decision concluded that petitioner did not prove any of the charges by a preponderance of the evidence, finding the credibility of both parties to be equal, with no reliable way to determine what had occurred. On appeal, petitioner argued that the hearing officer erred as a matter of law because he was required to make findings as to the conflicting evidence, his findings were not based on a preponderance of the evidence, and the decision was not supported by substantial evidence. The appellate decision agreed, noting that since the hearing officer failed to make any credibility finding or determine what occurred, the dismissal of the violations was not supported by substantial evidence. The appellate decision found, based on the testimony of both parties, that respondent failed to comply with a passenger’s reasonable request when he refused to drop off the passenger on the requested side of the street because respondent would not have committed any traffic violation complying with the passenger’s request. The decision further found that the specific statements made to the passenger, which were undisputed by respondent, together with respondent’s admission that he argued with the passenger about the drop-off location, established that respondent was discourteous to the passenger. However, the appellate decision dismissed the charge of threatening, harassing, or abusing any person, finding no testimony from the passenger at the hearing to support the unsworn allegation on the summons that respondent cursed at the passenger. TLC v. Mahmud Hossain, Appeal No. 10272728C (Aug. 13, 2025).