Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings311Search all NYC.gov websites
Chapter II - Subchapter A
§ 2-04 Further Proceedings.
Oral Argument
Prequalified vendor appeals are intended to provide limited and expedited review of the decision already made by the agency. Oral argument is permitted only when the ALJ finds it necessary to make its decision on the appeal. Vendor’s request for oral argument denied where the vendor’s arguments were advanced in the petition and reply and nothing in the request demonstrated why the issues could not be adequately reviewed based on the papers filed. Council of Belmont Organization, Inc. v. Dep’t for the Aging, OATH Index No. 1163/12, mem. dec. (Mar. 14, 2012).
Discovery
Vendor's motion for document discovery and to make the ACCO and agency head available for deposition was denied. The purpose of an appeal pursuant to this subchapter of the OATH rules is to permit limited and expedited review of a decision already made by the agency, not to provide a de novo fact-finding proceeding where that decision will be made anew by an OATH administrative law judge. Mazzocchi Wrecking, Inc. v. Dep't of Housing Preservation & Development, OATH Index No. 1296/06, mem. dec. (Mar. 27, 2006).
Sur-Reply Papers
This section, which expressly prohibits submission of sur-reply papers in pre-qualified vendor appeals, furthers the purpose of speedy and simplified presentation and adjudication of pre-qualified vendor appeals. In the event that counsel believes sur-reply papers are necessary, proper procedure is an application, which may be made by telephone conference call, for leave to file such papers. The intention of this section is that leave to file sur-reply papers will rarely be granted. Penn-Troy Machine Company, Inc. v. Dep't of General Services, OATH Index No. 478/93 (Mar. 2, 1993).
Evidentiary Hearing
An evidentiary hearing on a pre-qualified vendor appeal will be conducted only in the most extraordinary circumstances where a determination cannot otherwise be reached, not simply whenever there are facts in dispute. Rod Knox Architect v. Dep't of General Services, OATH Index No. 304/93 (Dec. 10, 1992).