Chapter I - Subchapter C

§1-34 Pre-Trial Motions.

Procedure

While there are no rules requiring permission to file a motion, the better practice for parties seeking to make dispositive motions is to confer with the assigned conference or trial judge to determine whether such a motion is appropriate. This would focus the parties on the key issues, conserve precious government resources, and avoid unnecessary and costly litigation for the parties. Matter of Various Tenants of 85 North 6th Street, OATH Index Nos. 1122/14, 989/15, & 990/15 mem. dec. (May 1, 2015).

Procedural objections to motion denied where tenants requested and received permission to submit a pre-trial motion to dismiss owner’s defense, the motion was served on owner’s counsel, the motion provided a clear statement of the nature of the claims, the relief sought, and the grounds for the motion, and the owner received a full opportunity to respond. Matter of Various Tenants of 239 Banker Street, Brooklyn, New York, OATH Index Nos. 155/21, 291/21, 300/21, 313/21, 1217/21, 085/22, & 2318/21, mem. dec. (May 25, 2022).

Motion for summary judgment denied as insufficient where no attorney affirmation or memorandum of law were submitted. The motion papers were also not submitted in a reasonably understandable form, hampering the ALJ’s ability to make findings of fact. Matter of 281 North 7th Street Tenants, OATH Index No. 2567/14, mem. dec. (May 1, 2015).

Petitioners’ omnibus motion, contained in a letter, rather than in a formally captioned motion, adequately complied with OATH’s Rules, which do not mandate any particular form, so long as the “motion papers” make clear the grounds and the relief requested and the submission is properly served on the other parties. Matter of Tenants of 101-107 South 6th Street, Brooklyn, OATH Index No. 1290/12, mem. dec. (Apr. 27, 2012).

Written motions filed with OATH must meet certain minimum standards pursuant to subsection (c) of this section, including the caption of the case with the OATH Index number; a clear statement of the nature of the motion and the specific relief sought; a specific statement of the grounds upon which the motion is based along with supporting facts and authority; proof of service upon an adversary and notice of time within which an answer may be filed. Dep't of Correction v. Battle, OATH Index No. 1052/02, mem. dec. (May 15, 2002).

After respondent filed a memorandum of law in support of his contention that the use of the premises was not in violation of the Zoning Resolution, petitioner was granted eight days to respond to the memorandum pursuant to this rule and 48 RCNY § 1-50. Dep't of Buildings v. Owners, Occupants, and Mortgagees of 160 St. Albans Place, Staten Island, OATH Index No. 870/01 (Apr. 23, 2001).

Submission of pre-trial amicus brief permitted where judge found no delay in briefing schedule. Comm'n on Human Rights v. 325 Cooperative, Inc., OATH Index No. 1423/98, mem. dec. (July 16, 1998).

A party may remain silent in response to a motion unless the administrative law judge requires a response, and paragraph (d) of this section should be read as if the word “any” appeared before “responsive papers.” Fire Dep't v. Zollner, OATH Index No. 623/92 (June 12, 1992).

Untimeliness of a pre-trial motion may be sufficient ground for denial of the motion. Human Resources Admin. v. Man-of-Jerusalem, OATH Index No. 1021/91, mem. dec. (Nov. 12, 1991).

Particular Motions

INTERVENTION

The New York City Transit Authority (“NYCTA”) filed a motion to intervene in a proceeding brought by the Comptroller under the Labor Law alleging that respondents did not pay prevailing wages and benefits to employees for work on a contract with NYCTA. In granting NYCTA’s contested motion, the ALJ found that NYCTA had a direct and substantial interest in the outcome because it faces potential liability to respondents if this tribunal finds that prevailing wage rates apply; NYCTA’s motion was timely because trial dates had not been set; and granting the motion would not unduly broaden the issues or delay the trial, which primarily presents a question of law as to whether prevailing wage rates apply. Office of the Comptroller v. Fleetwash, Inc. & Anthony DiGiovanni, OATH Index No. 2377/24, mem. dec. (Apr. 4, 2024).

REQUEST FOR IN-PERSON TRIAL

ALJ liberally construed a self-represented respondent’s statement in a filing as a request for an in-person trial under the Administrative Order of the Chief Judge dated June 20, 2023, which provides that all trials will be conducted remotely, “unless an in-person appearance is ordered by the presiding Administrative Law Judge, in the judge’s discretion.” Respondent was charged with sexually harassing two nurses and one per diem teacher at the public school where he was assigned. Petitioner opposed the request, citing concerns for the complainants’ safety. The ALJ denied respondent’s request without prejudice, noting that respondent would have the full opportunity to cross-examine all witnesses during the remote trial and that respondent could renew his request should he encounter any technical difficulties that hindered his ability to fully participate in the remote trial. Respondent fully participated in the proceedings and did not renew his request. Dep’t of Education v. Vereen, OATH Index No. 1643/24 (May 31, 2024).

DEFAULT

It is well-settled that judgments by default are disfavored where a respondent is present and seeks to defend. ALJ denied motion to find pro se respondents in default and preclude them from participation in the hearing where agency gave belated notice to respondents of their failure to comply with agency’s rules and there were mixed signals given about intent to participate. Comm’n on Human Rights ex rel. Jordan v. Raza, OATH Index No. 716/15, mem. dec. (Feb. 11, 2015).

Respondent declared in default and precluded from participating in hearing after agency established that it made enormous efforts to get respondent to participate in the case, but he deliberately thwarted agency’s efforts and challenged its authority. Comm’n on Human Rights v. Jenkins, OATH Index No. 2331/13, mem. dec. (Oct. 30, 2013).

TO DISMISS THE PETITION

ALJ recommended dismissing, on collateral estoppel grounds, the second of two fitness proceedings brought by TLC against a licensee for his conviction of indecent assault in Pennsylvania in 2015. In the prior proceeding, a different ALJ recommended dismissal because TLC had brought the case under section 68-14(a)(3) of its rules, which authorizes TLC to revoke a license based on criminal convictions but does not include out-of-state, non-felony convictions such as the licensee’s 2015 conviction. TLC lifted the licensee’s suspension on February 9, 2024, but brought a second fitness proceeding under section 68-14(a)(1), which authorizes TLC to revoke a license based on any act that implicated the licensee’s ability to safely interact with the public. TLC reimposed the suspension in the second proceeding. The ALJ found that TLC was collaterally estopped from relitigating the issue of respondent’s fitness to hold a TLC license based on his out-of-state criminal conviction. The ALJ determined that although TLC has yet to issue a final decision on the prior proceeding, that recommendation had preclusive effect, and the public and the parties should have a reasonable expectation of finality once an adjudicatory hearing has been held. Taxi & Limousine Comm’n v. Saini, OATH Index No. 2260/24 (July 25, 2024), rejected, Comm’r Dec. (Aug. 5, 2024) (TLC concluded that “the subsequent action is not barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel” because the ALJ did not issue “a determination on the merits” and the issue of respondent’s fitness to retain his “TLC license was not actually litigated, squarely addressed, and specifically decided during the previous hearing”).

Motion to dismiss tenant’s unreasonable interference application granted. The ALJ found that petitioner’s claim based on the January 2020 Narrative Statement was moot because it was superseded by another Narrative Statement. Further, even accepting the tenant’s other allegations as true, they failed to constitute an unreasonable interference claim under section 2-01(h)(5) of the Loft Board rules. Matter of Brigham, OATH Index No. 1981/21 (Apr. 23, 2024).

In a permit revocation proceeding, respondent’s motion to dismiss petition granted where petitioner did not schedule a hearing at OATH within 15 days of the closure order, as required under the Health and Sanitary Codes. Under these circumstances, ALJ found that dismissal of the petition and lifting of the closure order was the appropriate remedy. To find otherwise would make meaningless petitioner’s obligation to follow its own rules governing the scheduling of a prompt hearing to give permittees an opportunity to seek relief from the closure order. Dep’t of Health & Mental Hygiene v. Root 4 You LLC d/b/a Here & Now, OATH Index No. 1460/24 (Feb. 16, 2024).

Motion to dismiss the petition for insufficient specificity pursuant to OATH Rule 1-22 denied. The petition alleged that on or about November 6, 2023, at approximately 2:37 p.m. in the vicinity of East 96th Street and Lexington Avenue, New York, New York, respondent operated a taxicab and failed to yield to a pedestrian while turning left onto Lexington Avenue, causing critical injury. The petition also stated that petitioner seeks revocation of respondent’s TLC Driver License under its rules. ALJ found that the petition provided sufficient notice of the allegations against respondent, the basis for revocation, and the relief requested. Taxi & Limousine Comm’n v. Fazal, OATH Index No. 1769/24 (Feb. 16, 2024), adopted, Comm’r Dec. (Feb. 26, 2024).

Respondent’s motion to dismiss on grounds that it is not a proper party denied. Agency asserted facts that, if proven, would subject respondent to liability. Comm’n on Human Rights ex rel. Bryant v. Shinda Management Corp., OATH Index No. 1400/19, mem. dec. (June 13, 2019).

ALJ denied respondent’s pre-trial motion to dismiss disciplinary charges regarding sale of controlled substance because he resolved the criminal charges against him with a reduced plea of criminal possession of an illegal substance. Guilty plea to a reduced criminal charge does not preclude agency from charging respondent and presenting evidence of the underlying conduct that led to the arrest. Fire Dep’t v. Halderman, OATH Index No. 569/19 (May 22, 2019).

Pre-trial motion to dismiss six specifications based upon lack of specificity granted in part. ALJ dismissed one specification alleging a minor act of discourtesy due to deficient pleading, but otherwise denied the motion, finding that the remaining charges, when combined with the discovery provided prior to trial, were sufficient to place respondent on notice of the alleged misconduct. Dep't of City Planning v. Kelly, OATH Index No. 516/19 (Jan. 7, 2019).

Motion to dismiss based on untimely service of disciplinary charges denied. ALJ found that respondent was timely served, and even if he was not, agency’s argument that respondent’s charged misconduct falls within the crimes exception to the time limitation provision of the Civil Service Law would need to be fully developed at trial. Dep’t of Correction v. Lopez, OATH Index No. 2365/18, mem. dec. (Sept. 25, 2018).

ALJ denied pre-trial motion to dismiss disciplinary charges brought against firefighter on the ground that his rights under the collective bargaining agreement and the First Amendment had been violated. Remedy for improper questioning under the collective bargaining agreement would be withdrawal of the questions made during the interview, not dismissal of the disciplinary charges. A determination of whether firefighter can be disciplined for wearing a t-shirt with allegedly offensive language or whether wearing such a t-shirt constitutes protected First Amendment speech is premature at the pre-trial stage as there were insufficient facts presented to determine whether firefighter was speaking as a citizen on a matter of public concern, and if so, whether the speech created a workplace disruption that outweighed the value of the speech. Fire Dep’t v. Buttaro, OATH Index No. 2430/14, mem. dec. (July 17, 2014).

Respondents’ self-serving claims in affidavit that they employed fewer than four people are insufficient to sustain a motion to dismiss. Whether respondents employed fewer than four employees requires fact finding. Motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction held in abeyance until completion of the fact-finding hearing. Comm’n on Human Rights v. Xio Lounge, OATH Index No. 2150/13, mem. dec. (Oct. 28, 2013).

In a license revocation proceeding where taxicab driver was charged with overcharging passengers, ALJ denied driver’s motion to dismiss on grounds that evidence obtained via a GPS device installed in his taxicab violated his state and federal constitutional rights. Taxi & Limousine Comm’n v. Azim, OATH Index No. 1818/11 (June 30, 2011), adopted, Comm’r Dec. (Aug. 15, 2011).

Pre-trial motions to dismiss are disfavored in practice at OATH and have only been granted in the clearest cases of failure by petitioners to state a viable claim. The burden of establishing the legal necessity of dismissal is particularly high in a case such as a civil service disciplinary action because the OATH ALJ makes recommended findings that are submitted to the referring agency for final decision. Motion denied as premature, where respondent acknowledged in her reply papers that there are issues of fact to be determined and witnesses need to be presented in support of her legal arguments. ALJ reserved decision on the merits until after trial. Dep’t of Correction v. LaSonde, OATH Index No. 2526/11, mem. dec. (July 8, 2011).

ALJ denied pre-trial motion to dismiss, rejecting argument that OATH lacks jurisdiction to hear disciplinary proceeding brought pursuant to section 75 of the Civil Service Law. Dep’t of Correction v. LaSonde, OATH Index No. 2526/11, mem. dec. (July 8, 2011).

ALJ denied respondent’s motion to dismiss disciplinary proceeding for failure to adhere strictly to agency rules governing disciplinary charges. An objection to a technical pleading defect should be filed with due diligence. Here, respondent waited over one year and failed to show that he was prejudiced by the procedure employed. Fire Dep’t v. Domini, OATH Index No. 2047/11, mem. dec. (July 28, 2011).

Pre-trial motions to dismiss are disfavored in practice at OATH and have only been granted in the clearest cases of failure by petitioners to state a viable claim. The burden of establishing the legal necessity of dismissal is particularly high in cases such as this, where the OATH ALJ makes recommended findings that are submitted for final decision to the Commission. Held, pre-trial motion to dismiss denied in discrimination case brought by the City Commission on Human Rights. Comm’n on Human Rights ex rel Hsu v. HSBC Bank, OATH Index No. 522/09, mem. dec. (Jan. 22, 2010).

ALJ denies pre-trial motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that petitioner named the wrong entity in the complaint. Bank is subject to liability for discriminatory acts of its wholly owned subsidiary (mortgage corporation) under the “single employer” doctrine, given bank’s involvement in decision to deny job to applicant based upon her arrest record. Comm’n on Human Rights ex rel Hsu v. HSBC Bank, OATH Index No. 522/09, mem. dec. (Jan. 22, 2010).

On a pre-trial motion to dismiss, a party seeking dismissal has the burden of establishing that the relief sought must be denied as a matter of law. In such motion, the facts as alleged in the petition must be assumed to be true and the petitioner be given the benefit of every possible inference. Matter of Tenants of 51-55 West 28th Street, OATH Index No. 2877/09, mem. dec. (June 26, 2009).

Administrative law judge denied pre-trial motion to dismiss, based on allegations that hospital's intimidation of certain potential witnesses would make a fair hearing impossible, because potential witnesses identified by the respondent had not yet refused to appear or to testify at trial. Health and Hospitals Corp. (Coney Island Hospital) v. Jellinek, OATH Index No. 2192/01 (Nov. 23, 2001).

Motion to dismiss on the basis of laches and prejudicial delay was denied where respondents did not make the requisite showing of actual substantial prejudice to their ability to defend against the charges. Dep't of Buildings v. Sarabella, OATH Index Nos. 2258-59/00 (July 2, 2001).

Administrative law judge denied respondent's motion to dismiss where respondent claimed that a related matter was pending in the Federal courts and that it would be improper for the tribunal to usurp the courts' jurisdiction over any issues which might be raised in the Federal suit. Administrative law judge found that respondent's action had been irrevocably dismissed, except for a still pending motion addressed to the Supreme Court of the United States to reconsider its denial of certiorari. Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Auth. v. King, OATH Index No. 501/00, mem. dec. (Jan. 24, 2000).

On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a prima facie case, made at the close of petitioner's direct case, the trier of fact is required to afford petitioner every inference which may be properly drawn from the facts presented and to consider petitioner's evidence in its most favorable light, in determining whether proof sufficient to establish all of the necessary elements of the charged misconduct was presented. Dep't of Buildings v. Jennings, OATH Index No. 561/00 (Nov. 30, 2000).

Administrative law judge granted respondents' motion to dismiss disciplinary charges where complainant and witnesses failed to appear on scheduled trial date despite prior notice and having been subpoenaed, the case was three and a half years old and involved minor discourtesy charges, there had been previous adjournments either due to petitioner's witnesses' inability to appear or petitioner's failure to properly order respondents in for trial, and the case had been marked final by this tribunal two dates prior to date at issue. Balance of competing interests of Department in providing an opportunity for civilian complaints to be aired, respondents, in an expeditious final result, and this tribunal in the integrity of its prior rulings, weighs in favor of dismissal. Police Dep't v. Sanchez, OATH Index Nos. 548-49/00 (Feb. 16, 2000).

Petitioner is required in the first instance to present proof as to each and every element of offense in its direct case. Administrative law judge, in evaluating prima facie motion to dismiss, is required to give every favorable inference to petitioner's proof at that juncture. It is a fundamental element of petitioner's direct case to provide some proof that respondent was the offending officer. Administrative law judge granted respondent's motion to dismiss for failure to make a prima facie case, made at the close of petitioner's case, where hearsay evidence produced by petitioner failed to prove that respondent was the police officer who intentionally tightened the complainant's handcuffs to cause him pain. Police Dep't v. Kendricks, OATH Index No. 1586/00 (July 11, 2000).

Delay of almost four years between the date of the charged acts of bribery and the date of the hearing does not sustain a motion to dismiss under Charter section 1046(c) that hearing be held within a reasonable time, absent proof of substantial prejudice to respondents due to the delay. Taxi and Limousine Comm'n v. Chrisanthos, Inc., OATH Index Nos. 1626-32/95 (July 21, 1998); Statharos v. NYC Taxi & Limousine Comm'n, 269 A.D.2d 280 (1st Dep't 2000).

Motion to dismiss for untimely service of charges denied, where the conduct fell within the crimes exception to the statutory limitations period because respondent was found to have incurred principal liability for the crime of assault in the third degree as an accessory. Police Dep't v. Murray, OATH Index Nos. 1695, 1820/98 and 183/99 (Nov. 6, 1998), rev'd on other grounds, Comm'r Dec. (Dec. 3, 1999).

Parties may not decide unilaterally to proceed directly to trial and forego a previously scheduled conference without first making a motion to the administrative law judge. Human Resources Admin. v. Danagogo, OATH Index No. 373/99, letter decision dated Nov. 18, 1998.

An employee's pre-trial motion to dismiss disciplinary charges based on the statute of limitations was denied, without prejudice to renew the motion at the close of the hearing, because the applicability of the statute of limitations turned on whether the employee had committed a crime, an issue which presented mixed questions of law and fact requiring trial. Dep't of Correction v. Gilliard, OATH Index No. 587/98, mem. dec. (Dec. 17, 1997).

An employee's pre-trial motion to dismiss employee disciplinary charges on the ground that the charges were time-barred was denied as premature, because the applicability of the statute of limitations depended upon factual questions which could only be resolved after trial. Police Dep't v. Kushner, OATH Index Nos. 447-48/97, mem. dec. (Oct. 8, 1996).

A pre-trial motion to dismiss may be granted only in the clearest case of a failure to plead a viable claim. Police Dep't v. Fredericks, OATH Index Nos. 386/97, 616/97 (Feb. 18, 1997).

Where the applicability of the statute of limitations turned on whether the petitioner could prove that the respondent had committed a crime, the respondent's pre-trial motion to dismiss the petition as time-barred was denied, because it was not certain that the petitioner could not prove that the respondent had committed assault in the third degree. Police Dep't v. Fredericks, OATH Index Nos. 386/97, 616/97 (Feb. 18, 1997).

The respondents' motion to dismiss the petition on the ground of laches was denied absent evidence that the respondents' ability to defend was prejudiced by the 27-month delay between the events in question and the trial. Dep't of Correction v. Garcia, OATH Index Nos. 765/95, 767-68/95 (Aug. 29, 1995).

Pre-trial motions to dismiss are disfavored, and are granted only in the clearest cases of failure by petitioners to plead viable claims. Fire Dep't v. Zollner, OATH Index No. 623/92 (June 12, 1992).

CHANGE VENUE

Although these rules do not address venue changes, this tribunal has accommodated off-site hearings involving incarcerated witnesses for security reasons. The Civil Practice Law and Rules and related case law may be looked to for guidance. The moving party bears the burden of establishing how its witness(es) would be inconvenienced if the motion is denied. A decision to grant or deny a request is discretionary, but hardship on a party if it relates to the party’s health is usually a consideration, particularly if it is supported by a doctor’s affidavit or other medical proof. ALJ granted party’s motion to change venue to a place located away from World Trade Center site where motion was supported by psychological report. Fire Dep’t v. Peltonen, OATH Index No. 2101/08 (Oct. 9, 2008), adopted, Comm’r Dec. (Nov. 21, 2008), aff’d sub nom Peltonen v. Scoppetta, 25 Misc. 3d 1208A, 901 N.Y.S.2d 901 (Sup. Ct. Kings Co. 2009).

ALJ granted motion to change venue, made by respondent, who was unrepresented and the sole caretaker for her seriously ill husband, so that she would not have to travel to Manhattan. ALJ balanced the parties’ arguments about hardship to respondent and convenience of all the witnesses and of counsel for the agency, and considered the need for access to justice for the unrepresented. The hearing was held in respondent’s home borough, with petitioner participating by videoconference. Comm’n on Human Rights v. Coticelli, OATH Index No. 970/11 (Aug. 19, 2011), adopted, Comm’n Dec. & Order (Nov. 21, 2011).

DISQUALIFY OPPOSING COUNSEL

In a Loft Board case, ALJ denied pre-trial motion to disqualify law firm from representing the owner alleging conflict of interest due to assigned attorney’s prior employment with the Loft Board. Tenants failed to establish that attorney’s previous work was substantially the same or similar to matters involved with the owner’s access application. Matter of American Package Company, Inc., OATH Index No. 1991/20, mem. dec. (Dec. 8, 2020).

In an inquest hearing where petitioner's counsel was one of the few people available with relevant information about what happened almost 18 years ago, Administrative Law Judge did not disqualify attorney from acting as counsel and as a witness in proceeding finding it would impose an unfair financial hardship and further delay a lengthy proceeding. Matter of Mandara, OATH Index No. 1635/09 (Mar. 3, 2009), adopted, Loft Bd. Order No. 3506 (May 21, 2009).

Motion to disqualify counsel granted pursuant to Disciplinary Rule 5-102, which prohibits an attorney from representation when it is obvious that he may be called as a witness on a significant issue; here, the adverse party intended to use at trial an affirmation made by counsel which contained statements adverse to his client. Dep't of Finance v. Jones, OATH Index No. 1127/06, mem. dec. (Mar. 9, 2006).

Administrative law judge denied motion for disqualification of petitioner's counsel based on counsel's participation in a pre-trial investigatory interview of respondent and precluded respondent from calling petitioner's counsel as a witness. Respondent failed to show that petitioner's counsel was a "necessary" witness. Dep't of Buildings v. Jennings, OATH Index No. 561/00 (Nov. 30, 2000).

Where a subtenant brought an overcharge claim against the prime tenant, who later moved to disqualify the subtenant's attorney because the attorney also represented the building owner, the administrative law judge denied the motion, noting that the owner was not a party to the litigation and finding the alleged conflict of interest due to dual representation to be conjectural. Matter of Shannon, OATH Index No. 1757/99, mem. dec. (Apr. 15, 1999).

Motions to disqualify opposing counsel are disfavored, because a party's right to select counsel has constitutional implications, and rejection of the counsel selected can work substantial hardships. Matter of Salva Realty Corp., OATH Index No. 743/96 (Mar. 8, 1996), adopted, Loft Bd. Order No. 1935 (Mar. 28, 1996).

Although a person generally may not serve both as trial counsel and as a trial witness, an exception was permitted where, pursuant to applicable provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the party's need for the individual as a witness was distinctive and disqualification of the individual from serving as trial counsel would impose a substantial hardship on the party. However, trial counsel was required to arrange for another attorney to conduct the proceedings while trial counsel testified. Matter of Salva Realty Corp., OATH Index No. 743/96 (Mar. 8, 1996), adopted, Loft Bd. Order No. 1935 (Mar. 28, 1996).

A party's motion to disqualify opposing counsel, a former city employee, based on the post-employment restrictions contained in the city's conflicts of interest law, was denied because counsel had not worked on the particular matter that was to be tried while she had served as a city employee. Matter of Salva Realty Corp., OATH Index No. 743/96 (Mar. 8, 1996), adopted, Loft Bd. Order No. 1935 (Mar. 28, 1996).

A motion to disqualify an opposing party's counsel is governed by the disciplinary rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility. An agency's attorney who will testify as a trial witness may act as counsel to the agency, and may provide administrative and supervisory support to trial counsel, but may not himself act as trial counsel. Human Resources Admin. v. Man-of-Jerusalem, OATH Index No. 1021/91, mem. dec. (Nov. 12, 1991).

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Both parties moved for summary judgment on tenant’s non-compliance application. ALJ rejected owner’s argument that the Loft Board no longer had jurisdiction over this matter because the Department of Buildings issued temporary and permanent certificates of occupancy. Further, tenant had standing to pursue her claim that the owner falsely certified compliance with Article 7-B of the Multiple Dwelling Law and that claim was not moot. However, neither party was entitled to summary judgment on the false certification claim as there were triable issues of fact. As to tenant’s claim that owner performed legalization work without Loft Board supervision or approval, the ALJ found that this claim was moot because, after filing the application, tenant received the requested relief when the Loft Board held a narrative statement conference, gave tenant an opportunity to participate, and certified the completion of the narrative statement process. Matter of Capone, OATH Index No. 799/22, mem. dec. (May 10, 2024).

Summary judgment is to be exercised with caution where the litigation raises novel issues of law and the determination of such issues would benefit from the development of a full record. Matter of Gatien, OATH Index Nos. 2121/13, 2161/13, 1033/14, 1034/14, 1381/14, & 2233/14, mem. dec. (June 4, 2014).

Respondents moved for summary judgment, claiming that NYC Human Rights Law’s ban on source of income discrimination is unconstitutional because voucher programs require warrantless government inspections of apartments. ALJ denied motion. OATH lacks jurisdiction to find the law unconstitutional on its face and respondents lack standing to bring an unconstitutional-as-applied challenge and that claim was also unripe for review. Comm’n Human Rights ex rel. Watson, et al. & Fair Housing Justice Center, Inc. v. PPC Residential, LLC, Parkchester Preservation Management LLC & Parkchester Preservation Company LP, et al., OATH Index Nos. 2245/19, 2246/19, mem. dec. (Sept. 11, 2023).

In Loft Board case, summary judgment on legalization timetable violation application denied where triable issues of material facts existed. However, owner entitled to partial summary judgment on the diminution of services and harassment claims as they relate to the owner’s legalization plan because tenants waived their objections to owner’s legalization plan by not submitting timely comments to the owner’s narrative plan. Matter of Various Tenants of 8-10 Grand Avenue, Brooklyn, OATH Index Nos. 326/21, 937/21, 938/21 (June 27, 2022).

Granting summary judgment under the Fair WorkWeek Law where the undisputed facts established that respondents failed to provide employee with written notice of her work schedule at least 14 days in advance of the start of that schedule; failed to obtain employee’s written consent to work additional hours; and failed to maintain and produce documentation. Denying summary judgment on other counts where there were disputed issues of material fact. Dep’t of Consumer and Worker Protection v. 557 Burger King Corp., OATH Index No. 2384/19 (Jan. 20, 2022).

Tenant’s motion for summary judgment granted where there was no issue of material fact regarding the owner’s noncompliance with the Loft Law legalization deadlines. Matter of Kosolapov, OATH Index Nos. 909/20 (May 5, 2021), adopted, Loft Bd. Order No. 5104 (Nov. 18, 2021).

Summary judgment motion denied where there are disputed issues of material fact that require an evidentiary hearing. Matter of Lee, OATH Index No. 1079/21, mem. dec. (Feb. 23, 2022); Matter of Kouns, OATH Index No. 2414/16, mem. dec. (Oct. 12, 2016).

Owner’s motion for summary judgment granted and protected occupancy application dismissed because applicant was evicted from unit and thus has no standing to pursue claim. Matter of Tenants of 255 McKibbin Street, OATH Index No. 771/19 (Aug. 12, 2019), adopted in part, rejected in part, Loft Bd. Order No. 5160 (Sept. 15, 2022).

A motion for summary judgment will be granted where there are no disputed issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to relief as a matter of law. In the absence of a material factual dispute, as here, there is no need for an evidentiary hearing. Comm'n on Human Rights ex rel Shmushkina v. New Brooklyn Realty, OATH Index Nos. 2541/08, 2542/08 & 2543/08, mem dec (Jan. 2, 2009); Comm'n on Human Rights ex rel Shlyakov v. 1347 Ocean Co., LLC, OATH Index No. 2829/08 (Jan. 12, 2009).

The petitioner's motion for summary judgment before trial was denied where the respondent's offer of proof raised triable issues of fact. Matter of Teitelbaum, OATH Index No. 424/96, mem. dec. (Dec. 11, 1995).

SUPPRESSION OF EVIDENCE

The Department of Buildings brought a license revocation proceeding against a master plumber. The plumber, who also works for the Department of Sanitation, made a pretrial motion to suppress statements he made to the Department of Investigation on the ground that the investigators failed to inform him of his right to representation under section 75 of the Civil Service Law. ALJ denied the motion, finding section 75 inapplicable in the license revocation proceeding. Dep't of Buildings v. Grande, OATH Index No. 794/06, mem. dec. (Mar. 9, 2006).

In a Loft Board proceeding, petitioner-tenant moved to suppress tape recorded conversations between petitioner and doorman/security guard on the ground that the recording was made without petitioner's knowledge or consent. OATH lacks jurisdiction to exclude the tape pursuant to CPLR § 4506(1), which provides that the motion to suppress be made before a justice of the Supreme Court in the district where the proceeding is pending. Further, as the security guard was a party to the conversation and consented to the taping, the taping was not illegal within the meaning of state law (Penal Law §§ 250.00(2), 250.05). Matter of Kasher v. BLF Realty Holding Corp., OATH Index No. 262/99 (Oct. 26, 2001), adopted in part, rejected in part on other grounds, Loft Bd. Order No. 2704 (Feb. 7, 2002).

The respondent's request for a pre-trial hearing on his motion for suppression of certain evidence against him was denied, and the suppression issues were deferred for adjudication at trial. Dep't of Correction v. Mack, OATH Index No. 964/95, mem. dec. (Feb. 3, 1995); see also Transit Auth. v. Castro, OATH Index No. 748/95 (Mar. 7, 1995).

JOINDER OF NECESSARY PARTIES

To accommodate her disability, petitioner sought a first floor apartment. The landlord denied the request because all of the first floor apartments were occupied under existing lease agreements. Petitioner sought joinder of real estate company and hospital, which leased first floor apartments from the landlord and then in turn leased those units to subtenants, on the ground that they were necessary parties to the requested relief, a first floor apartment. Under this section, the joinder of necessary parties is at the discretion of the administrative law judge. Finding that displacement of existing tenants would not be an available remedy if petitioner was ultimately successful, the administrative law judge denied the motion. Hagopian v. NJR Associates, OATH Index No. 2368/99, mem. dec. (Dec. 9, 1999).

MOTION TO REOPEN

Petitioner's motion to reopen was properly addressed to OATH administrative law judge where judge had previously withdrawn the original report and recommendation to correct an error. Administrative law judge granted the motion to supplement the record with further proof on the issue of liability, noting that although petitioner had not made a compelling showing that the evidence to be offered was unavailable at the original hearing, the motion was unopposed and “the dictates of justice militate against penalizing a party for . . . oversight or error of law in not introducing material evidence during the course of the hearing that was then available.” Office of the Comptroller v. NAB Management Associates, Inc., OATH Index No. 2162/99, mem. dec. (Oct. 8, 1999).

Respondent's motion to reopen the record to admit into evidence the unsolicited post-hearing affidavit from a Step 1A conference leader was granted as material and relevant to an assessment of petitioner's chief witness' credibility. Petitioner's motion to submit a letter containing the preliminary investigatory findings of the State Health Department's investigation into this matter was denied on procedural grounds as well as on the merits. The motion was procedurally defective because it was not served on petitioner's adversary. On the merits, the document was excluded because the administrative law judge found it would be unfair to the respondent if the judge were to rely on a bald conclusory statement regarding respondent's culpability in the incident. Health and Hospitals Corp. (Seaview Hospital Rehabilitation Center and Home) v. Rayside, OATH Index No. 972/99, mem. dec. (Apr. 15, 1999).

SANCTIONS

Preclusion of an agency's requested witness is the proper remedy for agency's repeated failure to identify the witness during numerous pretrial communications establishing the agency's witness list. Dep't of Housing Preservation & Development v. Porres, OATH Index No. 627/06 (June 16, 2006).

Sanctions in the form of a fine of $1,000 imposed upon petitioner's counsel for counsel's willful disobedience of tribunal's orders setting trial date and requiring proper harassment pleading and production of trial exhibits. Attorney sanctions ruling is undisturbed by Loft Board. Loft Board rejects ALJ's recommendation that application be dismissed with prejudice or conditions be placed on applicant before he may refile and remanded the matter to OATH for resolution of existing claims, and matter settled. Dawe v. 20 Beaver Street LLC, OATH Index Nos. 237/06 and 335/06, mem. dec. (Oct. 20, 2006), rejected in part and remanded, Loft Bd. Order No. 3161 (Feb. 15, 2007).

ORDER PERMITTING INSPECTION

Applicants’ pre-trial motion for an order permitting inspection of commercial premises by expert granted, with limitations. Photographs and notes may be taken, but no testing of any substances allowed unless previously authorized by ALJ upon a showing of relevance. Inspection must be jointly scheduled, and notice given to all parties. Tenants of 100 Metropolitan Avenue, OATH Index Nos. 2346/13, 1151/16, 1542/16, & 596/17, mem. dec. (Oct. 21, 2016).