Chapter I - Subchapter A

§1-04 Construction and waiver.

Absent precedent stating a standard applicable to requests for amicus participation in a disability discrimination case under the City Human Rights Law, reference to practice before the Commission’s former tribunal is appropriate and the standard is whether, in the discretion of the presiding judge, such participation will substantially further the “just and efficient adjudication of cases.” Comm’n on Human Rights v. 325 Cooperative, Inc., OATH Index No. 1423/98, mem. dec. (July 16, 1998).

Rules Interpreted Liberally; Discretion of Administrative Law Judge

ALJ found that exigent circumstances warranted deciding a motion to reopen the record, even though the motion should have been addressed to the deciding authority in the first instance, because strict application of OATH Rule 1-52 would cause unnecessary delay and be inconsistent with the objective of providing a reasonably prompt and final resolution of the disciplinary proceeding, which had been pending for six months. Health & Hospitals Corp. (Harlem Hospital Ctr.) v. Norwood, OATH Index No. 143/05, mem. dec. (June 20, 2005).

An application that respondent’s wife and a friend be permitted to observe the undercover witness’ testimony was denied because divulging the witness’ identity would be tantamount to placing him and his family in jeopardy and would compromise ongoing police investigations. Under section 1-49, all OATH hearings are open unless legally recognized grounds exist for closure. Section 1-49 was interpreted in light of this section which gives the administrative law judge discretion to waive or modify trial rules as may be appropriate in a particular case to promote the just and fair adjudication of cases. Dep’t of Correction v. Lowndes, OATH Index No. 1662/99 (July 29, 1999), rev’d on other grounds, NYC Civ. Serv. Comm’n Item No. CD00-84-R (July 24, 2000).