OATH Recent Decisions

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

Featured Agency Decision

The Conflicts of Interest Board adopted ALJ Seon Jeong Lee’s recommendation to impose a $6,500 civil penalty for a former project manager who operated a private ticket-selling business while employed by a city agency. The ALJ found that for over six years, respondent misused city resources by using his agency computer to store 1,030 files related to his private business and using his agency e-mail account to send and receive 27 e-mails. However, the ALJ found that petitioner did not establish that respondent used his agency computer to create documents for his private business. The ALJ recommended a $6,500 civil penalty in lieu of petitioner’s requested penalty of $7,500, finding that a lesser penalty is warranted because petitioner did not prove all charges. Conflicts of Interest Bd. v. Mombrun, OATH Index No. 2424/23 (July 8, 2024), adopted, COIB Case No. 2019-732 (Oct. 29, 2024).

Personnel

ALJ Jonathan Fogel recommended termination of employment for an administrative director who knowingly approved a subordinate’s fraudulent timesheets, made false timesheet entries on his behalf, and failed to verify the accuracy of his timesheets. The ALJ found that on numerous occasions from 2017 to 2022, respondent submitted and approved a subordinate’s timesheets even though she knew that the subordinate was not at work. The ALJ did not credit respondent’s explanation that her CityTime account may have been “compromised,” and rejected respondent’s argument that she had approved the timesheets in good faith, finding that respondent failed to address why she took affirmative steps to record and approve specific work hours for her subordinate, including overtime, when he was not working and was instead traveling out of state. Although respondent has been employed by petitioner since 2008, received favorable performance reviews in recent years, and has no disciplinary history, the ALJ concluded that termination is an appropriate penalty because her repeated and deliberate dishonesty over several years demonstrated a lack of integrity. Admin. for Children’s Services v. King, OATH Index No. 2284/24 (Oct. 11, 2024).

ALJ Seon Jeong Lee recommended dismissal of charges brought against a captain who allegedly engaged in undue familiarity by retrieving an envelope containing narcotics contraband from the jail cell of one person in custody and delivering it to another person in custody. Petitioner’s proof principally consisted of surveillance footage of respondent retrieving envelopes from the jail cell of a person in custody, as well as audio recordings of phone calls made by two persons in custody arranging for the delivery of contraband. The ALJ determined that petitioner failed to establish the charges because it did not prove that one of the detainees was on the audio recordings arranging for delivery of contraband and that the surveillance footage did not show respondent transporting the alleged contraband. The ALJ found gaps and inconsistencies in petitioner’s proof, such as petitioner’s failure to offer testimony of any witnesses and the investigator’s failure to interview material witnesses, including respondent. Dep’t of Correction v. Amaning, OATH Index No. 2793/24 (Oct. 11, 2024).

Licensing

ALJ Julia H. Lee recommended revoking respondents’ home improvement company (“HIC”) license and imposing a $1,850 civil penalty based on respondents’ creation of a straw company to evade DCWP’s enforcement actions. Shortly after DCWP denied a HIC renewal license to Diplomat Home Improvement LLC (“Diplomat I”) and its owner Christopher Marrow based on the company’s repeated rules violations, respondent Diplomat Home Remodeling, LLC (“Diplomat II”) applied for a HIC license and listed Christopher Marrow’s son, Donavan Marrow, as the sole owner. The ALJ rejected respondents’ argument that Diplomat II was a new and independent business, noting that the two companies used the same address, employed the same individuals, and shared identical business practices, and found that respondents provided deceptive and untruthful information in their license application. The ALJ also found Donavan Marrow’s deposition testimony vague and evasive, exhibiting a want of knowledge regarding Diplomat II and the home improvement business in general. The ALJ determined that Donavan Marrow made false representations under oath and that his actions demonstrated a lack of the good moral character required of licensees. The ALJ also sustained charges of failure to comply fully with DCWP’s document demand and failure to comply with notice of cancellation requirements. Dep’t of Consumer & Worker Protection v. Diplomat Home Remodeling, LLC, OATH Index No. 1467/24 (Oct. 1, 2024).