Chapter I - Subchapter D

§1-50 Trial Motions.

Procedure

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 48 RCNY § 1-34 and this rule. Dep't of Buildings v. Owners, Occupants, and Mortgagees of 160 St. Albans Place, Staten Island, OATH Index No. 870/01 (Apr. 23, 2001).

ALJ may reserve decisions on motions made during trial and address them in the report and recommendation.  Taxi & Limousine Comm’n v. M.K., OATH Index No. 330/22 (Sept. 10, 2021), adopted, Comm’r Dec. (Sept. 23, 2021); Comm’n on Human Rights ex rel. McKnight v. H & M Hennes & Mauritz L.P. & BJW Realty LLC et al., OATH Index No. 905/20 (Mar. 31, 2022); Dep’t of Buildings v. Nobel, OATH Index No. 35/22 (Mar. 15, 2022), adopted, Comm’r Dec. (Apr. 8, 2022).

Motions addressed to the sufficiency of petitioner’s evidence will be reserved until closing statements and it is improper to make such motions at the close of petitioner’s case. Taxi & Limousine Comm’n v. Diallo, OATH Index No. 3515/23 (Aug. 2, 2023), adopted, Comm’r Dec. (Aug. 7, 2023); Taxi & Limousine Comm’n v. Fermin De La Cruz, OATH Index No. 3576/23 (July 5, 2023), adopted, Comm’r Dec. (July 6, 2023).

Particular Motions

WITHHOLD PARTY'S NAME

The respondent, a correction officer, was gay but had kept that fact private and separate from his professional life. The complainant in the employee disciplinary case against him was his former paramour, and the trial evidence necessarily included considerable evidence about the history and nature of the private relationship between the two men. Therefore, the respondent's motion at the conclusion of trial, to be identified in the report and recommendation only by first name and last initial, in the event that he was not found guilty, was granted in order to protect his privacy. Dep't of Correction v. Toby C., OATH Index No. 1692/96 (Sept. 19, 1997).

MOTION TO DISMISS

Under TLC’s Rules, the Chairperson can summarily suspend a license if the Chairperson believes that continued licensure would constitute a direct and substantial threat to public health or safety. Respondent moved to dismiss the summary suspension of his TLC driver license, arguing there was insufficient evidence that the TLC Chairperson believed that his continued licensure would constitute such a threat. The ALJ denied the motion to dismiss, finding that the suspension of respondent’s license immediately after his arrest demonstrated the Chairperson’s belief that continued licensure would constitute such a threat based on the pending criminal charges. The suspension was lifted on other grounds because petitioner failed to prove at the hearing that respondent’s continued licensure during the pendency of the criminal case would pose a direct and substantial threat to public health or safety. Taxi & Limousine Comm’n v. Ali, OATH Index No. 103/25 (July 23, 2024), adopted, Comm’r Dec. (July 24, 2024).

In a summary suspension case, respondent moved to dismiss the petition on the grounds that petitioner failed to show that respondent had pending criminal charges. The ALJ denied the motion because it was undisputed that respondent was arrested and charged with a crime which led to the suspension of his TLC license. The ALJ further found that the police reports clearly stated that respondent was given a desk appearance ticket with a return court date, indicating that the criminal charge was pending. Taxi & Limousine Comm’n v. Abubakkar, OATH Index No. 3118/24 (May 24, 2024), adopted, Comm’r Dec. (May 29, 2024).

Motion to dismiss harassment application denied without prejudice. ALJ found that there was a contested issue about whether applicant sold her Loft Law rights, as alleged. ALJ further found that applicant’s eviction did not deprive her of standing to pursue the harassment application because she filed the application while she occupied the premises, the alleged harassment occurred while she was an occupant, and applicant’s eviction occurred near the conclusion of her case at trial. Matter of Schmidt, OATH Index No. 1759/22 (Dec. 1, 2023) (letter to parties).

Administrative law judge granted motion to dismiss during trial where petitioner-attorney failed to put on any prima facie evidence in support of the charges. Human Resources Admin. v. Levitant, OATH Index No. 397/04 (Sept. 7, 2004).

MOTION TO STRIKE

ALJ denied motion to strike reply to trial motion. Although reply memos are generally not favored and advance permission is generally required, a reply closing is not expressly forbidden by this section. Dep’t of Educ. v. Bermel, OATH Index No. 1332/11 (May 23, 2011), adopted, Chancellor’s Dec. (June 20, 2011).

MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE

In a license revocation proceeding where taxicab driver was charged with overcharging passengers, ALJ denied driver’s motion to suppress evidence obtained via a GPS device installed in his taxicab on the ground that the evidence was obtained in a manner which violated his state and federal constitutional rights. Taxi & Limousine Comm’n v. Carniol, OATH Index No. 1736/11 (June 24, 2011), adopted, Comm’r Dec. (Aug. 15, 2011).