CityAdmin Help

BIC (Business Integrity Commission)

Link to Business Integrity Commission’s web site

The Business Integrity Commission is both a regulatory and law enforcement agency that oversees the private carting industry and the public wholesale markets in New York City. Its mission is to eliminate organized crime and other forms of corruption and criminality from the industries it regulates.
Return to top

 


 

CHR (Commission on Human Rights)

Decisions Posted on Site:
Significant Recommended Decisions (Prior to 1998)
Final Decisions (Prior to 1998)
Both recommended and final decisions issued since 1998 are found in the OATH section of the site.

Link to Commission on Human Rights web site

The New York City Commission on Human Rights enforces the New York City Human Rights Law.

The Human Rights Law is one of the most comprehensive bodies of civil rights laws in the nation. The Law prohibits discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations based on race, color, creed, age, national origin, alienage or citizenship status, gender (including gender identity and sexual harassment), sexual orientation, disability, marital status, or partnership status. In addition, the Law affords protection against discrimination in employment based on arrest or conviction record and status as a victim of domestic violence, stalking, or sex offenses. In housing, the Law affords additional protections based on lawful occupation, family status, and any lawful source of income. The Human Rights Law also prohibits retaliation and bias-related harassment.

Return to top

 


 

COIB (Conflicts of Interest Board)

Decisions Posted on Site:
Advisory Opinions (1989 – Present)
Enforcement Dispositions (1992 – Present)

Link to Conflicts of Interest Board web site

New York City Charter Chapter 68 (“Conflicts of Interest”) identifies as its purpose the preservation of the trust placed in public servants of the City. Chapter 68 establishes the Conflicts of Interest Board, whose five members are appointed by the Mayor with the advice and consent of the City Council. Board members may hold no other public office, may not be a public employee in any jurisdiction, may hold no political party office, and may not appear as a lobbyist before the City. The Board has jurisdiction over all officials, officers, and employees of the City, including all City elected officials. The Board administers the City’s ethics code by training public servants about the law’s requirements, by rulemaking, by giving advice to public servants about their proposed conduct, and by prosecuting violations of the law.

In its advice giving role, the Board, pursuant to Charter Section 2603(c), responds to requests from prospective, current, and former public servants about their proposed future conduct. The Board’s formal advisory opinions (as opposed to its more numerous informal advice letters) are issued publicly, with deletions to prevent disclosure of the identity of the parties involved. Since its creation in 1989 the Board has issued 196 advisory opinions, starting with a new number each year (e.g., 98-1, 98-2). All of these opinions are posted on the Center’s web site. Also available on the web site are the Board’s enforcement dispositions from 1992 to the present. The Board is grateful to the Center for New York City Law of New York Law School for making the text of each of these opinions available on this site.

Return to top

 


 

DCA (Department of Consumer Affairs)

Decisions Posted on Site:
Decisions by Administrative Law Judges (January 1, 2003 – Present)

Link to Department of Consumer Affairs web site

The New York City Department of Consumer Affairs, founded in 1969, was the first municipal agency of its kind.

The work of Consumer Affairs includes:

LICENSING
Consumer Affairs operates the New York City License Center, which issues licenses to more than 60,000 businesses in 55 categories. Businesses requiring licenses include home improvement contractors, cigarette dealers, sidewalk cafes, vendors, parking lots and cabarets. The DCA Licensing & Collections Division collects fines from licensed and unlicensed businesses that violate the Consumer Protection, License Enforcement, and Weights and Measures Laws. The division also processes licenses and collects fines for the New York City Department of Health.

ENFORCEMENT
The DCA Enforcement Division fields inspectors to make sure that the laws protecting consumers are upheld. The division enforces the weights and measures, consumer protection, and business licensing laws. The laws are enforced by:

  • INSPECTING licensed businesses – more than 100,000 routine inspections each year
  • COURT ACTION to halt deceptive trade practices
  • CONFISCATING THE VEHICLES of unlicensed home improvement contractors or tow truck operators

MEDIATING COMPLAINTS
The City fields around 200,000 complaint calls each year. When a service complaint falls within DCA’s legal jurisdiction, the DCA Consumer Complaints Division will pursue mediation between the consumer and the vendor. If the issue cannot be resolved, DCA’s administrative law judges will hear the case. When appropriate, the DCA Legal Division pursues litigation against businesses that defraud consumers.

EDUCATION AND ADVOCACY
Consumer Affairs uses the press, publications, speaking engagements, our web site, and seminars to educate both consumers and businesses about their rights and responsibilities. DCA also recommends consumer protection legislation and organizes coalitions to support these recommendations.

AGENCY-WIDE INITIATIVES
DCA joins forces with businesses, local officials, other government agencies, advocacy groups and individual consumers to tackle citywide consumer problems.

DCA’s administrative law judges issue hundreds of decisions each year. All of these decisions are posted on the Center’s website as they are issued. All decisions issued beginning on January 1, 2003 are included.

Return to top


 

DOI (Department of Investigation)

Decisions Posted on Site:
Reports (January 1, 2007 – Present)

Link to Department of Investigation web site

The New York City Department of Investigation (“DOI”) is one of the oldest law-enforcement agencies in the country and an international leader in the effort to combat corruption in public institutions. It serves the Mayor and the people of New York City by acting as an independent and nonpartisan watchdog for New York City government. DOI’s major functions include investigating and referring for prosecution cases of fraud, corruption, and unethical conduct by City employees, contractors, and others who receive City money. We are also charged with studying agency procedures to identify corruption hazards and recommending improvements in order to reduce the City’s vulnerability to fraud, waste, and corruption. We investigate backgrounds of persons selected to work in decision-making or sensitive City jobs, and VENDEX those who do business with the City, to determine if they are suited to serve the public trust. The enormous range of this docket means that DOI handles at any one time hundreds of complaints. Every week, in fact, almost every day, the agency’s work is punctuated by incoming matters including 911-type situations that require the immediate attention of a cadre of top-flight investigators and members of the executive staff. In a time of diminishing resources, we continue to find new and effective ways to address the problems challenging the City. We try to identify and fix potential corruption hazards before they develop into criminal prosecutions. And, we ensure that we recover monies the City has lost. In 2002, more than $44 million was levied or recovered through court-ordered restitutions and forfeitures, administrative fines, asset recoveries, and the reinstatement of summonses or reassessments. Founded in 1873 (as the Office of the Commissioner of Accounts) as a result of the Boss Tweed and Tammany Hall scandals, DOI investigates City employees, those doing or seeking to do business with the City, as well as members of the public who engage in corrupt, fraudulent, or unethical activities. Working closely with other investigative agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Justice Department, the New York State Attorney General, and the New York Police Department, DOI’s work leads not only to arrests and convictions, but to actions and legislation that improve City operations and save or recoup precious taxpayer dollars. Charged with oversight of a City workforce of 300,000 and a City budget of more than $44 billion, DOI works tirelessly during a time of diminishing resources to prevent fraud from occurring, to detect fraud that has already occurred, and to help the agencies and entities for which it is responsible to develop internal control systems and training to safeguard the public’s interest in honest and efficient governance.

Return to top


 

ECB Appeals (Environmental Control Board Appeals)

Decisions Posted on Site:
Board Decisions (June 24, 2003 – Present)

Link to Environmental Control Board web site

The Environmental Control Board (ECB) is comprised of thirteen members. Six members are Ex-Officio and six are appointees, confirmed by the City Council. The appointees are experts in the fields of water, air and noise pollution control, business and real estate. There is one appointee who is a general representative. The final person is the Chair. He or she is the Chief Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) of the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (OATH). The Board’s jurisdiction is set forth in Section 1049-a of the New York City Charter.

The Charter gives the Board the power to adjudicate summonses so an ECB administrative tribunal was created within the City’s Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to handle hearings for ECB cases. ECB hearings are hearings on summonses issued for alleged “quality of life” and public safety infractions of the City’s laws and rules; such laws as illegal dumping, abandoned vehicles, dirty sidewalks, unlicensed street vendors, building and fire codes, asbestos abatement, use of city parks, street and sidewalk openings, and posting of handbills, to name just a few. Summonses can be issued by many city agencies, including the Departments of Sanitation, Environmental Protection, Health, Buildings, Fire, Parks, Police, Transportation, Information Technology & Telecommunications, Landmarks Preservation, and the Business Integrity Commission, among others.

On August 12, 2008, Mayor Michael Bloomberg signed Local Law 35 which transferred ECB’s adjudicatory responsibilities from DEP to the City’s Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (OATH). ECB hearings are now conducted at the OATH Hearings Division.

In brief, parties wishing to contest summonses appear at hearings before OATH hearing officers who, after considering the testimony and documentary evidence presented at a hearing, issue a decision either finding a respondent in violation and imposing a monetary penalty or dismissing the summons. Any party disagreeing with a hearing decision may file an appeal with the Board, provided that the procedures set forth in OATH rules pertaining to appeals are followed. The Board will establish panels from among its members to review recommended decisions issued by the OATH Appeals Unit and to issue the appeal decisions. A panel may refer a case to the full Board for review and decision if the panel is unable to reach a decision. The decision of the panel or the Board is considered to have been issued becomes the final decision in the City administrative hearing process. Appeal decisions issued by the Board can be challenged in New York State Supreme Court under Article 78 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR).

ECB Appeals decisions posted on the Center’s web site are appeals decisions rendered by the Board. All such decisions issued on and after June 24, 2003, are included here. All such decisions issued on and after January 27, 2017 are also available in the OATH Hearings Division section of the Center’s web site.

Return to top


 

JCOPE (NYS Joint Commission on Public Ethics)

Lobbying and Ethics Advisory Opinions:
(1978 – Present)

Link to NYS Joint Commission on Public Ethics web site

JCOPE is an independent ethics and lobbying regulator with oversight that includes State legislators, candidates for the Legislature and legislative employees, as well as the four statewide elected officials, candidates for those offices, executive branch state employees, certain political party chairs, and lobbyists and their clients. The Commission provides information, education, and advice regarding current ethics and lobbying laws, and promotes compliance with these laws through required disclosure filings, audits, investigations, and enforcement proceedings.

Return to top


 

LAW DEPT. (Opinions of the Corporation Counsel)

More information coming soon.
Return to top

 


 

HEALTH (Health Tribunal)

Decisions Posted on Site:
Appeal Decisions (2011 – Present)
The Health Tribunal is an independent New York City administrative tribunal. The Health Tribunal provides hearings on tickets issued by the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH) for violations of the New York City Health Code, New York State Public Health Law, New York State Sanitary Code, Regulations of the New York City Health Commissioner, and other laws relating to or affecting health within the City.

Pursuant to Mayoral Executive Order 148 of 2011, the Tribunal, which had been part of the DOHMH, was transferred into the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings on July 3, 2011.

The Health Tribunal employs Hearing Officers, also called Administrative Law Judges or ALJs, to preside at its hearings. Health Tribunal ALJs are experienced, independent decision-makers responsible for deciding cases. ALJs have the authority to impose civil fines ranging from $200 to $2,000 for each violation.

The rules of the Health Tribunal are found in Chapter 6 of Title 48 of the Rules of the City of New York (“Rules of Practice Applicable to Cases Before the Health Tribunal at OATH”).

The hearing and appeal processes, as well as the rights of parties appearing at the Health Tribunal, are described in its Rules. In brief, respondents wishing to contest tickets appear at hearings before ALJs who, after consideration of testimony and documentary evidence presented at the hearings, issue decisions and orders that either find a respondent in violation and impose a penalty, or dismiss the ticket. Any party disagreeing with an ALJ’s decision may file an appeal with the Tribunal, provided that the procedures set forth in Tribunal’s Rules are followed.

Decisions posted on the Center’s website are appeals decisions rendered by the Health Tribunal Appeals Unit.
Return to top

 


 

MAYOR (Mayor’s Executive Orders)

Decisions Posted on Site:
Executive Orders (January 1, 2004 – Present)

Link to Mayor’s Office web site

The Office of the Mayor is established in Chapter 1 of the New York City Charter. Among the powers delegated to the Mayor is the power to issue Executive Orders. The Mayor may issue Executive Orders to, among other things, create or abolish bureaus, divisions, or positions within the Office of the Mayor as he or she may deem necessary to fulfill mayoral duties. The Mayor may also delegate to or withdraw from any member of said office, specified functions, powers, and duties, except the Mayor’s power to act on local laws or resolutions of the Council, to act as a magistrate, or to appoint or remove officials.

Return to top


 

MOCS (Mayor’s Office of Contract Services)

Decisions Posted on Site:
Resolutions (January 1, 2003 – Present)
Rehabilitation Applications (June 1, 2004 – Present)

Link to Mayor’s Office of Contract Services web site

City Chief Procurement Officer Decisions (July 1, 2003 – present)

Since its creation in 1988, the Mayor’s Office of Contracts has assisted City agencies in complying with procurement procedures and in improving their contract management practices, particularly in the area of business integrity assessment.

One of the Office’s many functions is to decide appeals finding City contractors to be non-responsible. Pursuant to the Procurement Policy Board Rules, the City may award contracts only to responsible contractors. A responsible contractor is one that has the capability in all respects to perform fully the contract requirements and the business integrity to justify the award of public tax dollars. For a list of some of the factors that affect a contractor’s responsibility, please consult the PPB Rules § 2-08.

Agency determinations of non-responsibility are first made by the Agency Chief Contracting Officer (ACCO). A determination of non-responsibility is not a bar to bidding on future contracts. Rather it is a determination that awarding a particular contract to a particular contractor would not be in the best interest of the City. No City agency is required to deny an award to a vendor simply because the vendor has previously been found non-responsible.

Vendors may appeal ACCO determinations of non-responsibility to the respective agency head and then to the City Chief Procurement Officer (CCPO). The CCPO can uphold a non-responsibility determination for any reason, even a ground that was not cited by the agency. The CCPO can also reverse a non-responsibility determination based on information that was not in the record before the agency. The CCPO’s decisions are posted on the Center for New York City Law’s web site.

The Mayor’s Office of Contracts also maintains a comprehensive contract information system known as Vendex, supports continued outreach to the vendor community, and maintains the Public Access Center. The Public Access Center is available to the general public and provides visitors to our office access to public contract information. In conjunction with the Financial Information Services Agency and all the Mayoral agencies, the office maintains centralized, citywide bidders and proposers lists, which agencies use to solicit vendors. Vendors can submit just one application – free of charge – and be placed on citywide lists used by all agencies. The on-line Vendor Enrollment Application is available atwww.NYC.gov/selltonyc.


Return to top


 

OATH (Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings)

Decisions Posted on Site:
Recommended and Final Decisions (1990 – Present)
Selected Decisions (1979 – 1989)

Link to OATH web site

The Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (OATH) is the City’s central, independent and impartial administrative law court. OATH has the authority to conduct adjudicatory hearings for all mayoral and non-mayoral city agencies, boards and commissions. OATH’s jurisdiction, powers, and duties are defined in Chapter 45-A of the City Charter.

OATH was established by Executive Order No. 32 in 1979, to professionalize the administrative hearing system serving City government. OATH was made a Charter agency in 1988, as part of the Charter revisions which enacted the City Administrative Procedure Act (CAPA). Among CAPA’s primary reforms was the establishment of OATH as the first municipal central tribunal in the country separate from the agencies that refer cases to it.

Removing adjudications from within agencies was a primary objective of the Charter revisers. The creation of a central independent decision-maker fosters increased confidence in the fairness of the administrative hearing process. The Charter revisers further secured this objective by granting five-year terms to OATH’s administrative law judges (ALJs) to enhance their impartiality. Initially, OATH’s caseload consisted of mostly disciplinary cases brought by City agencies against civil service employees. With the 1988 Charter revisions giving OATH general jurisdiction, the types of cases referred to OATH have substantially increased. OATH currently conducts approximately 300,000 hearings and trials annually.

Today, OATH is comprised of two divisions that are responsible for different types of adjudications: the OATH Trials Division and the OATH Hearings Division. It also offers training services through the Administrative Judicial Training Institute and mediation services through the Center for Creative Conflict Resolution.

The OATH Trials Division adjudicates a wide range of issues referred by City agencies. Its caseload includes employee discipline, retention of seized vehicles, license and regulatory enforcement, real property and loft law disputes, contract disputes and human rights violations. OATH Trials are conducted by full-time Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) who are appointed to five-year terms. OATH Trials Division Rules are set forth in Chapters 1 and 2 of Title 48 of the Rules of the City of New York.

The OATH Hearings Division holds hearings on summonses issued by the City’s many different enforcement agencies, including the Departments of Buildings, Fire, Health, Environmental Protection, Parks, Sanitation, Police, Consumer Affairs and the Landmarks Preservation and Taxi and Limousine Commissions, among others. The only types of municipal summonses that are not filed at OATH for hearings are parking tickets, which are filed at the Department of Finance’s Parking Violations Bureau. OATH receives approximately 850,000 summonses each year from City enforcement agencies and hearings are conducted by full and part-time hearing officers. OATH Hearings Division Rules are set forth in Chapter 6 of Title 48 of the Rules of the City of New York.


Return to top


 

OATH Trials (OATH Trials Division)

Decisions Posted on Site:
Recommended and Final Decisions (1990 – Present)
Selected Decisions (1979 – 1989)

Link to OATH web site

The Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (OATH) is the City’s central, independent and impartial administrative law court. OATH has the authority to conduct adjudicatory hearings for all mayoral and non-mayoral city agencies, boards and commissions. OATH’s jurisdiction, powers, and duties are defined in Chapter 45-A of the City Charter.

The OATH Trials Division caseload includes employee disciplinary and disability, license revocation cases brought by City licensing agencies, regulatory and zoning cases, conflicts of interest proceedings, contract dispute resolution for City-issued contracts, Loft Law hearings, vehicle seizure hearings for cars seized by the NYPD, City Human Rights Law violations and other adjudications as provided by state and local law.

OATH trials are presided over by administrative law judges (ALJ’s) who are appointed to five year terms. OATH Trials Division decisions include findings of facts and either a recommendation to the referring agency of a final disposition or, where OATH is the deciding agency, the final decision itself. In many instances the agency action based on an OATH recommendation is included with the decision, but not always.

Agencies that refer adjudicatory matters to the OATH Trials Division include the following:

Administration for Children Services, Aging, Buildings, Correction, Design and Construction, Environmental Protection, Finance, Fire, Health, Homeless Services, Housing Preservation and Development, Human Resources Administration, Loft Board, Parks, Police, Probation, Sanitation, Taxi and Limousine Commission, Transportation, Board of Education, Comptroller, Conflicts of Interest Board, Campaign Finance Board, Health and Hospitals Corporation, Transit Authority, Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority, Off Track Betting, and Teachers Retirement System, among others.


Return to top


 

OATH Hearings (OATH Hearings Division)

Decisions Posted on Site:
Appeal Decisions (January 2017- present)

Link to OATH web site

The Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (OATH) is the City’s central, independent and impartial administrative law court. OATH has the authority to conduct adjudicatory hearings for all mayoral and non-mayoral city agencies, boards and commissions.

The OATH Hearings Division is staffed by over 250 part- and full-time hearing officers, who annually adjudicate approximately 300,000 challenges to summonses issued by City enforcement agencies, including the Departments of Buildings, Consumer Affairs, Environmental Protection, Fire, Health, Information Technology and Telecommunications, Parks, Police, Sanitation, Transportation, and the Business Integrity, Landmarks Preservation, and Taxi and Limousine Commissions, among others. OATH Hearings Division Rules are set forth in Chapter 6 of Title 48 of the Rules of the City of New York.

Hearings Division hearings are less formal than those conducted at the OATH Trials Division or at some other City tribunals. A party may bring an attorney or other representative to the hearing, but most respondents choose to represent themselves. Hearing officers are authorized to impose a broad range of monetary penalties but do not have the authority to revoke licenses. Most cases carry monetary penalties that are set by law and hearing officers do not have the discretion to alter penalty amounts in those cases where there are set penalties. There are currently six locations for in-person hearings, one in each borough with two hearing centers in Queens. Respondents in most cases also have the option of a hearing by mail, hearing online or hearing by phone.

The decisions posted on the Center’s web site are appeal decisions issued by the OATH Appeals Unit on OATH Hearings Division cases. ECB Appeal decisions that were issued in 2017 through the present are also included.


Return to top


 

OCB (Office of Collective Bargaining)

Decisions Posted on Site:
Board of Collective Bargaining (1968 – Present)
Board of Certification (1968 – Present)

Link to Office of Collective Bargaining web site

The Office of Collective Bargaining is an impartial, tri-partite governmental agency created by local law as authorized by the State’s Taylor Law. It was established by the City Council of New York City after negotiations and agreement among representatives of the City, the unions representing City employees, and impartial labor relations professionals. The OCB provides assistance to management (the City) and labor (unions representing city employees) in resolving their differences. The OCB consists of two Boards: the Board of Collective Bargaining and the Board of Certification. The Board of Collective Bargaining has two labor representatives, two City representatives, and three public, impartial members. It determines claims that employers and/or unions have engaged in improper labor practices in violation of the law, and it issues remedial orders when violations are found. It designates arbitrators and provides arbitration procedures to settle contractual grievances. And, it helps bring about agreement during contracts negotiations by designating mediators and impasse panels. The Board of Certification is comprised only of the three impartial members. It determines bargaining units and certifies unions as the exclusive bargaining representative of appropriate units, and it determines whether particular titles or employees are excluded from bargaining because they are managerial or confidential within the meaning of the law.

All municipal agencies and the unions representing their employees are under the jurisdiction of the OCB for purposes of labor relations. A municipal agency is an administration, department, division, bureau, office, board, commission, or other agency of the City, the head of which has appointive powers and whose employees are paid in whole or in part from the City treasury. Mayoral agencies are part of the City’s municipal agencies, and are also under the jurisdiction of the OCB. For example, the Police Department is a Mayoral agency, while the Campaign Finance Board is a non-mayoral municipal agency. The New York City Housing Authority, the Health and Hospitals Corporation, and the Off-Track Betting Corporation are among those other agencies or institutions that are under the jurisdiction of the OCB for purposes of labor relations. The Hospitals Corporation is under the OCB’s jurisdiction pursuant to the law creating the Corporation, while Housing and the OTB have elected to come under the jurisdiction of the OCB for use of its labor relations procedures, subject to the approval of the Mayor.

A complete set of the full text of Board of Collective Bargaining and Board of Certification decisions, dating from the agency’s creation in 1968, are available for research on this web site. A digest of our decisions, containing a paraphrase of the holding on each issue arising in a case, is also available along with a complete set of court decisions reviewing those OCB decisions that were appealed.


Return to top

 


 

TAT (Tax Appeals Tribunal)

Decisions Posted on Site:
Administrative Law Judges’ Determinations and Orders (1993 – present)
Tribunal Commissioners’ Decisions and Orders (1990 – present)

Link to Tax Appeals Tribunal web site

The New York City Tax Appeals Tribunal (the “Tribunal” or “TAT”) is an independent agency created by the New York City Charter. The Tribunal has the responsibility of providing a fair, impartial, efficient and knowledgeable forum in which to resolve disputes between taxpayers and the New York City Department of Finance (“DOF”) involving statutory notices issued by DOF for non-property taxes administered by New York City.

The Tribunal consists of two divisions: an Administrative Law Judge Division and an Appeals Division. The Appeals Division consists of three Commissioners appointed by the Mayor. One of the three Commissioners is also designated as President of the Tribunal by the Mayor. The Administrative Law Judge Division consists of a Chief Administrative Law Judge and other Administrative Law Judges. Each Administrative Law Judge holds conferences and evidentiary hearings and issues written Determinations. If either a taxpayer or the Commissioner of Finance of the City of New York (or both) object to an Administrative Law Judge’s Determination, s/he may file an Exception with the Appeals Division of the Tribunal. The Commissioners, sitting en banc, will review the record, hold oral argument, and render a Decision that will affirm, reverse, or modify the Administrative Law Judge’s Determination or remand the case for further proceedings. Only the taxpayer may appeal a Decision of the Commissioners; such appeal is heard by the Appellate Division, First Department.

The Tribunal’s regulations presently include provisions for the filing of petitions, hearing practice and procedure before an Administrative Law Judge, and appeal procedures regarding Exceptions to the Appeals Division from Determinations issued by Administrative Law Judges.

Return to top


 

TLT (Taxi & Limousine Tribunal)

Decisions Posted on Site:
Administrative Law Judges’ Appeal Decisions (2007 – present)

Link to Taxi & Limousine Tribunal’s web site

The Taxi & Limousine Tribunal is an independent New York City administrative tribunal. The Taxi & Limousine Tribunal provides hearings on tickets issued by the New York City Taxi & Limousine Commission (TLC) to its licensees for violations of NYC and TLC rules and regulations.

Pursuant to Mayoral Executive Order 148 of 2011, the Tribunal, which had been part of the TLC, was transferred into the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings on July 3, 2011.

The Taxi & Limousine Tribunal employs Hearing Officers, also called Administrative Law Judges or ALJs, to preside at its hearings. Taxi & Limousine Tribunal ALJs are experienced, independent decision-makers responsible for deciding cases. ALJs have the authority to impose civil fines of up to $10,000 depending on the severity of a violation, as well as the suspension of respondents’ licenses.

The rules of the Taxi & Limousine Tribunal are found in Chapter 68 of Title 35 of the Rules of the City of New York (“Adjudications”), as amended by the Appendix to the Mayor’s Committee on Consolidation of Administrative Tribunals Report and Recommendations (“Report Appendix”) (available athttp://www.nyc.gov/html/ajc/downloads/pdf/consolidation_report_final_lh.pdf).

The hearing and appeal processes, as well as the rights of parties appearing at the Taxi & Limousine Tribunal, are described in its Rules. In brief, licensees wishing to contest tickets appear at hearings before ALJs who, after consideration of testimony and documentary evidence presented at the hearings, issue decisions and orders that either find a respondent in violation and impose a penalty, or dismiss the ticket. Any party disagreeing with an ALJ’s decision may file an appeal with the Tribunal, provided that the procedures set forth in Tribunal’s Rules are followed. Additionally, parties may petition the TLC Chairperson for review of appeal decisions.

Decisions posted on the Center’s website are appeals decisions rendered by the Taxi & Limousine Tribunal Appeals Unit and final decisions by the TLC Chairperson.


Return to top


BSA (Board of Standards and Appeals)

Decisions Posted on Site:
Resolutions (January 1, 2002 – Present)

Link to Board of Standards and Appeals web site

Created as part of the City’s system for regulation of land use, development, and construction, the Board of Standards and Appeals was established as an independent Board of thirteen members in 1916 pursuant to an amendment to the Greater New York Charter. Subsequent amendments and the 1991 Charter fixed the Board at its current complement of five full-time commissioners appointed by the Mayor with the consent of the City Council for terms of six years. By law, the Board must comprise one registered architect, one professional engineer, and one planner. The remaining commissioners need no professional qualification, however no more than two commissioners may reside in any one borough.

As a board of “appeals,” the Board hears and decides appeals from property owners whose applications to construct or alter buildings or establish new uses have been denied as contrary to law by the enforcement agencies – the Department of Buildings, the Fire Department and the Department of Business Services. In such instances, the City Charter confers the power on the Board to interpret the meaning or applicability of the provisions of the Building Code, Fire Code, Multiple Dwelling Law, Labor Law and the New York City Zoning Resolution. In certain cases, it is given the power to vary these regulations for specific sites or projects. The Board is also given the power to grant special permits and to make other determinations under the Administrative Code and Zoning Resolution and to hear applications from the Buildings Department and Fire Department to modify or revoke certificates of occupancy. This broad range of powers brings before the Board a large number of issues that affect the development of the City and the effectiveness of its building safety regulations. Among the functions of the Board which is most visible is its zoning power, particularly its power to grant variances and special permits, which cases are frequently of vital interest to Community Boards, civic organizations, and neighborhood residents.

The Board is a quasi-judicial body, which means that it can only act upon specific applications brought by landowners or interested parties who have received prior determinations from one of the enforcement agencies noted above. The Board cannot offer general opinions or interpretations, and it cannot grant a variance or a special permit to any person who has not first sought a proper permit or approval from an enforcement agency. Further, the Board does not have equity powers, which only the Courts can exercise. Thus, in reaching its determinations, the Board is limited to specific findings and remedies as set forth in state and local laws, codes, and the Zoning Resolution, including, where required by law, an assessment of the proposals’ environmental impacts.

The Board meets regularly in public review session and holds public hearings to vote on applications as described above.

All of the Board’s Resolutions beginning in 2003 are available on the web site and are posted as issued.

Return to top


 

BP (Borough Presidents ULURP Recommendations)

Decisions Posted on Site:
ULURPs (January 1, 2006 – Present)

Link to Department of City Planning web site, describing ULURP
Within thirty (30) days of receipt of a Community Board recommendation, or if the Community Board fails to act, within thirty (30) days of the expiration of the Community Board’s review period, the Borough President shall submit a written ULURP recommendation to the City Planning Commission (CPC). If an application involves land in more than one community district, the Borough Board may (within the Borough President’s review period) also review and submit a recommendation to CPC. If the Borough President fails to act within the time limit, the application proceeds to CPC.

Return to top


 

COUNCIL (New York City Council: Land Use Committee)

Decisions Posted on Site:
Resolutions (2003 – 2005)

Link to New York City Council web site

The 51-member City Council is the final decision-maker on many land use matters in New York City. The majority of land use issues are reviewed pursuant to the City Charter’s Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (“ULURP”). This process allows for review and advisory recommendations by the local Community Planning Board (60 days) and the Borough President (30 days). These reviews are followed by dispositive rulings by the City Planning Commission (60 days) and, in many cases, the City Council (50 days).

There are twelve categories of subject matter covered by ULURP:

 

  • Changes to the City Map
  • Maps of subdivisions and the platting of land into streets, avenues, etc.
  • Designation of zoning districts
  • Special permits under the jurisdiction of the City Planning Commission
  • Site selection for City capital projects
  • Revocable consents, solicitations for franchises, and major concessions
  • Improvements in real property, the costs of which are payable other than by the City
  • Housing and urban renewal plans and projects
  • Sanitary or waterfront landfills
  • Disposition of city-owned real property
  • Acquisition of real property by the City (except office leases)
  • Other matters that are proposed by the City Planning Commission and enacted by the Council by local law.

The City Planning Commission issues a decision on all of these matters and files every decision with the Council. Of these twelve categories, the Charter requires Council review and action of only three of them: zoning map changes, housing and urban renewal plans, and the disposition of certain real property. These mandatory items automatically go on the Council’s calendar.

The remaining matters are “discretionary.” The Council may assert jurisdiction over them within twenty days of receipt if seven Council Members make a non-debatable “Call-up” motion at a meeting of the full City Council. There is another rarely-used mechanism by which Council jurisdiction may be conferred on discretionary matters. It is called the “Triple No.” If the Community Board recommends disapproval (the first “no”), the Borough President recommends disapproval (the second “no”), but the Planning Commission approves, the Borough President may file written objections with the Council (the third “no”). In such a case, the Council must hear and act on the matter.

In addition to matters covered by ULURP, the Council’s jurisdiction over land use matters can be found in various sections of the City Charter and state statutes. For example, landmark designations and the creation of historic districts may be disapproved or modified by the Council, although an affirmative approval is not required. Similarly, the Council may disapprove site selections for new school locations proposed by the School Construction Authority. A mayoral agency may not solicit bids for franchises without first obtaining a franchise authorizing resolution from the Council. Intergovernmental transfer of real property pursuant to the General Municipal Law may also trigger Council action. Changes to the text of the Zoning Resolution must also be approved by the Council. Leases of office space are subject to a “mini-ULURP” that may result in Council action.

On all ULURP matters, the Council has a 50-day period in which to act. Its twenty-day clock in which to “call-up” a matter is included within its 50-day period in which to act. If the Council fails to act or fails to assert jurisdiction, the decision of the City Planning Commission becomes final and binding.

The current City Council has a 21-member Land Use Committee and three seven-member Subcommittees. Public hearings on all matters are held at the Subcommittee level where a recommendation to the full Committee is made. The full Committee considers each Subcommittee recommendation and then adopts a resolution approving, approving with modifications, or disapproving a matter. Approval and disapprovals proceed directly to the full Council for its consideration. Modifications proposed by the Committee are referred back to the Planning Commission for what, in shorthand, has been called a “scope” review. The Commission’s scope review must be completed within fifteen days during which the Council’s 50-day clocked is tolled. If the Commission decides that the proposed modification requires additional land use or environmental review, the Council may not adopt the modification. If the Commission decides that the modification is within scope, even if it disagrees with the change from a policy perspective, the Council may go forward and adopt the Committee’s recommendation.

The Council files its decisions with the Mayor, who may veto within five days. The Council, by a two-thirds vote, may override the veto within ten days.

Return to top


 

CPC (City Planning Commission)

Decisions Posted on Site:
Reports (July 2003 – Present)

Link to Department of City Planning web site

The City Planning Commission, established by the 1936 City Charter, began operating in 1938 with seven members appointed by the Mayor. The 1989 Charter expanded the Commission to thirteen members. The Mayor appoints the Chair of the Commission, who also serves as the Director of the New York City Department of City Planning. In addition to the Chair, the Mayor appoints six other members. The Borough Presidents each appoint one member, and the Public Advocate appoints one member.

The Commission is responsible for the conduct of planning relating to the orderly growth and development of the City, including adequate and appropriate resources for the housing, business, industry, transportation, distribution, recreation, culture, comfort, convenience, health, and welfare of its population. The Commission meets regularly to hold hearings and vote on applications concerning the use, development, and improvement of real property. Where required by law, its consideration of these applications includes an assessment of their environmental impacts where required by law.

Posted on the Center for New York City Law’s web site are the CPC Reports beginning July 2003. The reports are written records of actions taken by the CPC with respect to land use applications filed under the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP), zoning text amendments, and Section 197-a community-based land use plans. The CPC Reports may refer to recommendations made to the CPC by Community Boards and Borough Presidents during the course of the ULURP process. Copies of these recommendations may be obtained from the Department of City Planning’s Calendar Information Office (212) 720-3370.

It is important to note that the reports do not necessarily reflect the final outcome with respect to an application, since most applications are subject to review by the City Council following CPC approval.

The City Council automatically reviews:
zoning map changes;
zoning text changes;
housing and urban renewal plans;
disposition of residential buildings, except to non-profit companies for low-income housing; and
Section 197-a community-based land use plans.

The City Council may elect to review the following by voting to take jurisdiction within twenty days after the CPC files its report. If the City Council does not assume jurisdiction of these items, the action of the CPC is final:
City Map changes;
zoning special permits;
revocable consents, franchise RFP’s, and major concessions;
disposition of commercial or vacant property;
disposition of residential buildings to nonprofit companies for low-income housing; and
site selection and acquisition of real property.

The Council may approve, disapprove, or modify CPC actions. Viewers should go to the City Council’s web site to view the final dispositions of applications reviewed by the Council.

Return to top


 

DOB (Department of Buildings)

Decisions Posted on Site:
Operational Policy and Procedure Notices (OPPN) (1999 – Present)
Technical Policy and Procedure Notices (TPPN) (1999 – Present)
Administrative Policy and Procedure Notices (APPN) (1999 – Present)
The DOB website contains PPNs from 1987 to present; earlier years are in PDF format.

These notices represent official policies of the Department to assist customers in following various operational and technical procedures.

Link to Department of Buildings web site

The New York City Department of Buildings (DOB) enforces standards for the construction and use of buildings within the five boroughs to ensure the safety of the public. It does this by administering and enforcing the City’s Building Code, Electrical Code and Zoning Resolution, New York State Labor Law, and New York State Multiple Dwelling Law.

To meet its mandate, the Department:

  • Reviews applications and plans for new construction, and the alteration or demolition plans of existing structures
  • Issues building permits
  • Performs inspections of new or substantially altered buildings to assure that construction has been completed according to the appropriate codes and laws, and then issues Certificates of Occupancy
  • Performs periodic inspections of elevators and certain types of boilers
  • Licenses various construction trades, including plumbers, electricians and crane operators
  • Investigates complaints, typically concerning illegal construction or zoning infractions
  • Updates the Building Code to reflect social and technological innovations

DOB consists of operating offices in each borough and an Executive office in Manhattan where policy is formulated and agency-wide administrative, technical, and legal activities occur. There are also centralized offices for the Boiler Division, Elevator Division, and Bureau of Electrical Control.

Members of the general public typically frequent the Department to obtain property records, register complaints, or resolve violations. The Department’s most frequent customers are building owners, developers, architects, engineers, and members of the construction industry whose work is regulated for the safety of the Citywide community.

All of these decisions are posted on the Center for New York City Law’s web site as they are issued. All decisions issued beginning on January 1, 1999 are included. If you cannot find the PPN you need, please check the DOB web site.

Return to top


 

LANDMARKS (Landmarks Preservation Commission)

Decisions Posted on Site:
Permitting (January 1, 2002 – Present)

Link to Landmarks Preservation Commission web site

The Landmarks Preservation Commission is the New York City agency that is responsible for identifying and designating the City’s landmarks and buildings in the City’s historic districts. The Commission also regulates changes to designated buildings. The agency, consisting of eleven Commissioners and a full-time staff, is called the Landmarks Preservation Commission, and the name is also used to refer to the eleven Commissioners acting as a body.

The Commission posts two sets of documents on this web site.

  • Designation reports, which describe the historic, cultural, and architectural considerations for designation as a landmark or historic district, and document features of the building or buildings that have been designated.
  • Permitting decisions, which are the decisions made by the eleven Commissioners following a Public Hearing or Meeting on applications for work on a landmarked building or in a historic district. Permitting decisions describe the work that was approved or denied, the building where the work is proposed to be done, and the reasons why the proposal was or was not found to be appropriate.

The types of permitting decisions available are listed below:

Certificate of Appropriateness (“C of A”)
The Certificate of Appropriateness is an approval or an approval with modifications of a proposal for work on a designated property. It is issued following a Public Hearing if the Commissioners find the proposed work to be appropriate.

A C of A is needed when the proposed work requires a Department of Buildings permit and will affect significant protected architectural features. Additions, demolitions, new construction, and removal of architectural features such as stoops and cornices usually require a C of A.

Commission Denial
The Commission Denial is a denial of a proposal for work on a designated property. It is issued following a Public Hearing if the Commissioners find the proposed work to be inappropriate.

Commission Report- Binding
The Binding Commission Report comments favorably or unfavorably on work proposed for designated City-owned properties, following a Public Hearing.

Commission Report- Advisory

The Advisory Commission Report comments favorably or unfavorably on work proposed for designated City-owned properties, following a Public Hearing. The New York City Art Commission has primary jurisdiction over this work.

Return to top


 

LOFT (Loft Board)

Decisions Posted on Site:
Orders (1996 – Present)

Link to Loft Board web site

The New York City Loft Board was established to resolve issues regarding the legalization and regulation of certain loft buildings converted to residential use. The Board is charged with responsibilities that include: determination of Loft Law coverage issues, rent disputes, legalization deadline extension applications, and other controversies presented by landlords and tenants; enforcement of residential legalization deadlines set forth in the Loft Law; and enforcement of minimum housing maintenance standards for buildings under the Board’s jurisdiction.

The Loft Board resolves many types of disputes between owners and residential tenants of interim multiple dwellings, including disputes over the legal rent for a unit, complaints concerning building conditions, harassment allegations, issues arising from the departure of a tenant from a unit, issues resulting from the process of legalizing the buildings, and requests by owners for extensions of the statutory legalization deadlines. These disputes are settled through adjudicative proceedings. Persons seeking relief through the Loft Law file applications for such proceedings and affected parties are given an opportunity to answer. Depending upon the nature of the controversy, decisions may be made on the papers before or after a hearing. These proceedings are conducted by hearing officers at the Loft Board as well as the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings. The hearing officers submit reports and recommendations to the Loft Board, which decides the cases by a majority vote at its monthly public meeting. The Center for New York City Law posts for reference purposes all Loft Board decisions beginning in 1996 to the present. Official copies of these decisions can be obtained at the Loft Board’s Offices.

Return to top