Chapter I - Subchapter B

§1-11 Appearances.

Notice of Appearance

Union attorneys have no standing to appear on behalf of a respondent unless they are retained. Health & Hospitals Corp. (Elmhurst Hospital Ctr.) v. Morsley, OATH Index No. 383/16 (Oct. 7, 2015); Dep’t of Health & Mental Hygiene v. Dickerson, OATH Index No. 1241/14 (Mar. 3, 2014).

OATH’s Rules favor the filing of a formal notice of appearance. However, participation in a telephone conference on behalf of a party “shall be deemed” an appearance by the attorney. Comm’n on Human Rights v. Britati Realty, Inc., OATH Index No. 778/13 (May 21, 2013).

Ignorance of OATH’s Rules is not an excuse because filing a notice of appearance constitutes a representation that the person appearing has read and is familiar with the tribunal’s rules of practice. Dawe v. 20 Beaver Street LLC, OATH Index Nos. 237/06 & 335/06, mem. dec. (Oct. 20, 2006), reversed in part on other grounds and remanded, Loft Bd. Order No. 3161 (Feb. 15, 2007); Matter of Live Centre Tenants Association, OATH Index No. 834/05, mem. dec. (Mar. 2, 2006).

Disqualification

Motion to disqualify Administratrix from appearing pro se denied. OATH Rule 1-11 does not specifically address whether an estate that is a party to a proceeding must be represented by counsel, or may be represented by a non-attorney Administratrix. Absent a rule requiring the tribunal to disqualify the Administratrix from appearing pro se or a showing that a conflict exists among the beneficiaries, ALJ found that the Administratrix may proceed pro se. Estate of Bikman, OATH Index No. 2199/13, mem. dec. (Sept. 24, 2013).

A respondent may be represented by a person of their choice so long as it is lawful. Absent evidence that respondent’s representative had appeared for respondent before agency for same matter, ALJ denied agency’s motion to preclude appearance based on City Charter post-employment provision. Dep’t of Correction v. Malone, OATH Index No. 882/06 (Jan. 11, 2007), aff’d sub nom Malone v. Horn, 2008 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 8225 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. Jan. 14, 2008).

Adjournment requests

Adjournment requests have been denied when the requests are not made by respondent or by a person who had filed the requisite notice of appearance. Dep’t of Buildings v. 112-33 159 Street, Queens, New York, OATH Index No. 1672/17 (June 16, 2017); Dep’t of Health & Mental Hygiene v. Abouomar, OATH Index No. 1157/17, mem. dec. (Apr. 14, 2017); Dep’t of Consumer Affairs v. Sky Materials Corp., OATH Index No. 830/17, mem. dec. (Feb. 7, 2017).

It is not OATH’s policy to grant adjournment requests made by attorneys who are not retained counsel because doing so would undermine the administrative efficiency of the proceedings. Human Resources Admin. v. Levitant, OATH Index No. 129/07 (Feb. 2, 2007).