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).
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).