' 1-13 Conduct; Suspension From Practice at OATH.

Applicability

Although some of the language in paragraph (a) of this section pertains to trial misconduct, the requirement of "dignified, orderly and decorous" conduct applies at all times and in all proceedings before this tribunal. Matter of Harmacol Realty Co., OATH Index No. 1975/96 (Dec. 12, 1996).

Conduct of Attorneys

SANCTIONS IMPOSED

The administrative law judge cautioned attorney for failing to disclose prior adverse holdings and for repeatedly asserting issues that have been previously adjudicated. In post-trial submissions, attorney raised several defenses to the padlock law but did not disclose that a prior decision by this tribunal had considered and rejected these same legal defenses. Dep’t of Buildings v. Owners, Occupants & Mortgagees of 2377 Grand Avenue, Bronx, OATH Index No. 1061/98 (June 12, 1998).

After an adjournment request was denied on the third and final day of trial, the administrative law judge instructed the parties to proceed. Counsel and respondent elected to leave the hearing, claiming they were unprepared to go forward. Pursuant to this section, the administrative law judge issued a warning to counsel for violating OATH’s rules and administrative law judge’s direction, as well as the applicable provision of the disciplinary rules, DR 2-110 (A)(1). Dep’t of Sanitation v. Garcia, OATH Index No. 1140/98 (May 1, 1998).

For failure without excuse to comply with the administrative law judge's order at the commencement of the case to submit a notice of appearance by a certain date, and failure to comply with section 1-11(c) of these rules by orally arguing a motion for an adjournment of a settlement conference without having submitted a notice of appearance, counsel who had not previously been formally sanctioned was formally admonished pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section. Matter of Harmacol Realty Co., OATH Index No. 1975/96 (Dec. 12, 1996).

Where counsel failed properly to move to withdraw as counsel, disregarded instructions of the administrative law judge to appear for trial as scheduled, and wrote letters to the administrative law judge that were manifestly inappropriate as a form of address by counsel to a judge, he was found to have violated paragraph (a) of this section, was formally reprimanded, and was cautioned that future violations might result in imposition of the more severe sanctions provided by paragraph (b) of this section. Dep't of Correction v. Lewis, OATH Index No. 1316/95 (May 31, 1995).