Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings311Search all NYC.gov websites

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).

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

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).