appeal Subscribe to RSS - appeal

Adopted Rules: Closed to Comments

Adopted Rules Content: 

Statement of Basis and Purpose of Rule

Local Law Number 38 of 2015 amended Section 24-146 of the Administrative Code, which provides for the issuance of an abatement order when it is found that work is being performed in violation of the provisions of Section 24-146.

DEP is adopting these rules, as required by Section 24-146(f)(5)(iii), to establish a procedure for requesting a hearing to appeal a written abatement order as a new Chapter 45 of title 15 of the Rules of the City of New York (RCNY).

DEP is also amending Chapter 32 of title 15 of the Rules to add the hearing for appeal of written abatement orders provided for in the new Chapter 45 to the list of adjudicatory hearings that can be conducted by DEP.

In addition, Chapter 32 is being amended to simplify complex legal references and to update obsolete references, including the repeal of subdivisions (f), (g) and (h) of 15 RCNY §32-01. Subdivision (f) is being repealed because the reference to noise sensitive zones in Administrative Code § 24-229(b) was repealed as part of the revision to the Noise Pollution Control Code by Local Law 113 of 2005. Subdivision (g) is being repealed because the reference to Environmental Ratings in Administrative Code § 24-154(b) was repealed as part of the revision to the Air Pollution Control Code by Local Law 38 of 2015. Subdivision (h) is being repealed because the reference to “approved noise consultants” incorrectly referenced the Air Pollution Code, and the process to appeal a revocation as a noise consultant is already set forth accurately in 15 RCNY § 32-01(b). Finally, this rule would allow parties in Department hearings to select the option of e-mail notification of the Department’s final determination.

The Rule is authorized by Section 1043 of the Charter and sections 24-105 and 24-146 of the Administrative Code.

Effective Date: 
Mon, 03/06/2017

Adopted Rules: Closed to Comments

Adopted Rules Content: 

NOTICE OF RULE MAKING

 

Pursuant to the power vested in me as Commissioner of Finance by New York City Charter Code sections 26-045, 26-509 and 26-605 and sections 1043 and 1504 of the New York City Charter, I hereby promulgate the rule concerning allowing the a respondent at a New York City parking ticket appeal hearing to submit additional or new evidence in the interest of justice and upon consent of the respondent. This rule was published in the proposed form on March 16, 2016. A hearing for public comment was held on April 22, 2016.

S/S___________________________________

Jacques Jiha, Commissioner of Finance

 

 

STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE

 

The Department of Finance’s Parking Violation Bureau adjudicates parking summonses issued in New York City. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) conducts a hearing and writes a decision and order that includes a finding of fact and conclusion of law after a review of all the evidence presented. If the ALJ finds the respondent guilty, the respondent can appeal the decision to an appeals panel within 30 days. Currently, the appeals panel may only review the case for errors of fact or law or jurisdictional defects in the summons and is bound by the record established at the hearing. No additional evidence may be reviewed except in the very limited circumstance where that evidence was not reasonably available at the time of the hearing.

This new rule allows the respondent to submit on appeal additional or new evidence in the interest of justice and upon consent of the respondent.

Matter underlined is new. Matter in brackets [] is to be deleted.

“Will” and “must” denote mandatory requirements and may be used interchangeably in the rules of this department unless otherwise specified or unless the context clearly indicates otherwise.

 

Amendments to Rules Relating to Parking Violations

 

§1.  Paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 39-12 of Title 19 of the Rules of the City of New York is amended to read as follows:

            (2) The Appeals Board may review the facts and the law in any matter [,] and, except in the interests of justice and upon consent of the respondent, shall not consider any evidence which was not presented to the administrative law judge. A concurring vote by two members of the Appeals Board panel will be required to make a determination on an appeal.

Effective Date: 
Fri, 06/24/2016

Proposed Rules: Closed to Comments (View Public Comments Received:1)

Agency:
Comment By: 
Friday, April 22, 2016
Proposed Rules Content: 

STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE

 The Department of Finance’s Parking Violation Bureau adjudicates parking summonses issued in New York City. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) conducts a hearing and writes a decision and order that includes a finding of fact and conclusion of law after a review of all the evidence presented. If the ALJ finds the respondent guilty, the respondent can appeal the decision to an appeals panel within 30 days. Currently, the appeals panel may only review the case for errors of fact or law or jurisdictional defects in the summons and is bound by the record established at the hearing. No additional evidence may be reviewed except in the very limited circumstance where that evidence was not reasonably available at the time of the hearing.

These proposed new rules seek to allow the respondent to submit on appeal additional or new evidence in the interest of justice and upon consent of the respondent.

Subject: 

Additional Rights Appealing a Parking Summons

Location: 
NYC Dept. of Finance Hearing Room
345 Adams Street, 3rd Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Contact: 

Garret Rubin at:
e-mail: rubing@finance.nyc.gov
Fax: 718 403-3650 or
NYC Dept. of Finance Legal Affairs, 345 Adams Street, 3rd Floor, Brooklyn, NY 11201

Download Copy of Proposed Rule (.pdf): 

Proposed Rules: Closed to Comments

Agency:
Comment By: 
Tuesday, November 12, 2013
Proposed Rules Content: 

 

 

Statement of Basis and Purpose

 

The City’s M/WBE Program, originally enacted by Local Law 129 (2005), and codified in section 1304 of the New York City Charter and section 6-129 of the Administrative Code (Ad. Code), establishes goals for participation by minority-owned business enterprises (MBEs), women-owned business enterprises (WBEs), and emerging business enterprises (EBEs) as contractors and subcontractors in the categories of construction, standard services, professional services, and goods valued under $1 million. Local Law 129 (2005) also requires the Commissioner to establish and operate, on behalf of the City, a centralized program for the certification of MBEs, WBEs and EBEs for the purposes of establishing the eligibility of such businesses for participation in the programs and processes established pursuant to local law to ensure their meaningful participation in City procurement.

 

Local Law 1 of 2013 amends these provisions by, among other things:

 

  • changing the participation goals for each of the four procurement categories (construction, standard services, professional services, and goods);

 

  • removing the million dollar cap on construction, professional services, and standard services procurements for which a City agency may establish goals;

 

  • lowering the cap from $1 million dollars to $100,000 for goods contracts for which a City agency may establish goals;

 

  • modifying defined terms and adding new defined terms;

 

  • changing the definition of “Graduate MBE and/or WBE” and “Graduate EBE” as well as adding new requirements that during the certification and recertification process, SBS determine whether a firm qualifies as a Graduate MBE, Graduate WBE or Graduate EBE and that SBS implement a process for applicable business entities to challenge such a determination as well as a process for having such a designation lifted;

 

  • adding new division requirements regarding oversight of the M/WBE Program, the provision of technical assistance and the promotion of joint ventures;

 

  • adding a new requirement that SBS perform site visits for at least 5% of new MBE and/or WBE as well as EBE certification applications in a given fiscal year; and

 

  • modifying the criteria and procedures for SBS to utilize in determining whether firms certified as MBEs and/or WBEs by other governmental entities can be recognized as certified business enterprises by the City.

 

The proposed rule amendments to Subchapters B, D and E of Chapter 11 of Title 66 of the Rules implement the above provisions of Local Law 1 of 2013 and conform to the new requirements established by Local Law.

 

In a separate, simultaneously published proposed rule, DSBS is amending the goals in Section 11-61 of Chapter 11 of Title 66 of the Rules of the City of New York to match the new goals established by Local Law 1. The intent of Local Law 1 was to set goals corresponding to the availability of MBEs or WBEs in categories where a significant disparity between availability and utilization was identified in the Disparity Data Analysis. The goal identified by the Analysis for WBEs in the professional services category was 17 percent; however, due to a legislative drafting error, the goal enacted in Local Law 1 was incorrectly listed as 37 percent. To reflect the correct goal of 17 percent for WBEs in the professional services category, the Commissioner will be exercising the authority provided under Ad. Code § 6-129(d)(4) periodically to review the availability and utilization rates for MBEs and WBEs and, where appropriate, to revise the Citywide participation goals set forth in that section. Section 6-129(d)(4) also provides that DSBS submit the results of the review and any proposed revision to the goals to the Speaker of the City Council at least 60 days prior to publishing a rule that would revise the goals. DSBS has already provided the results of the review to the Council, and, as noted above, the Council has included them in the Local Law 1 Committee Report. DSBS has notified the Speaker of the proposed rulemaking and the 60 day period has since elapsed.

 

 

Subject: 

Opportunity to comment on proposed amendments to rules concerning participation by and opportunities for minority-owned, women-owned and emerging business enterprises in City procurement.

Location: 
110 William Street, 4th Floor
New York, NY 10038
Contact: 

Anne Rascon
Deputy Commissioner, Division of Financial and Economic Opportunity
Department of Small Business Services
110 William Street, 2nd Floor
New York, New York 10038

Download Copy of Proposed Rule (.pdf): 

Adopted Rules: Closed to Comments

Adopted Rules Content: 

 

 

STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE

 

Pursuant to § 282 of Article 7-C of the Multiple Dwelling Law (“Loft Law”), the Loft Board may promulgate rules to ensure compliance with the Loft Law. In June 2010, the Legislature amended the Loft Law by enacting Chapter 147 of the Laws of 2010, which, among other things, amended § 282 of the Loft Law.

 

Section 282 authorizes the Loft Board to designate the Environmental Control Board (“ECB”) to enforce violations of the Loft Law. In accordance with the terms of MDL § 282, this amendment to section 1-07.1 of Title 29 of the Rules of the City of New York clarifies that the procedures for appeal in § 1-07.1, relating to appeals from administrative determinations, do not apply to appeals from ECB determinations.

The amendments further clarify that the procedures in § 1-07.1 apply to: 1) appeals from determinations by Loft Board staff with respect to any matter that does not have to go to the full Board for a determination and 2) determinations by a Loft Board hearing officer with respect to housing maintenance standard violations under § 2-04 of these rules. Finally, the amendments include minor technical changes with respect to the procedures for filing an appeal.

 

 

Effective Date: 
Wed, 09/11/2013

Proposed Rules: Closed to Comments

Agency:
Comment By: 
Monday, September 9, 2013
Proposed Rules Content: 

 

Statement of Basis and Purpose of Proposed Rule

 

On December 23, 2011 Governor Cuomo signed into law chapter 602 of the Laws of 2011, and on February 17, 2012, signed into law chapter 9 of the Laws of 2012, which amended the previous statute. This legislation allows New York City to issue up to 18,000 transferable licenses to for-hire vehicles authorizing them to pick up passengers by street hail anywhere outside Manhattan (except for the airports) and in Manhattan north of West 110th Street and north of East 96th Street. Up to 6,000 of these licenses for Street Hail Liveries can be issued in the first year of the program. Twenty percent of these licenses will be set aside for wheelchair accessible vehicles. As provided in the legislation, the TLC will make grants totaling up to $54 million available for SHL licensees who plan to purchase, or upfit, a vehicle for use as an Accessible Street Hail Livery.

 

As it moves forward to implement the program provided for in the legislation, the TLC is proposing rules that will govern the grant program. These rules provide that

 

·         Grants will be limited to $15,000.

·         Grants can be used to purchase an accessible vehicle for use as a street hail livery or have a vehicle retrofitted to be accessible.

·         Vehicles can be no more than three years old and must have fewer than 30,000 miles on the odometer.

·         The vehicle must be:

o   A pre-approved purpose-built accessible vehicle, or

o   Upfitted as part of a pre-approved package and provided by a pre-approved dealer, or

o   Otherwise approved by the TLC

·         Grants will be paid in installments over three years.

·         The TLC may withhold grant installments if it determines, among other things, that a recipient is no longer operating the vehicle as an Accessible Street Hail Livery.

 

These rules are authorized by Section 2303 of the Charter and Section 19-503 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York as well as the enabling legislation.

 

 

Subject: 

The Taxi and Limousine Commission is considering changing its rules. This change would delete sections of the TLC Rules relating to adjudications, which have been transferred to the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings pursuant to Mayoral Executive Order 148 of 2011.

Location: 
Taxi and Limousine Commission
33 Beaver Street – 22nd Floor Hearing Room
New York, NY 10004
Contact: 

Taxi and Limousine Commission, Office of Legal Affairs
33 Beaver Street – 22nd Floor
New York, New York 10004
212-676-1102
tlcrules@tlc.nyc.gov
www.nyc.gov/nycrules

Download Copy of Proposed Rule (.pdf): 

Adopted Rules: Closed to Comments

Adopted Rules Content: 

 

 

Statement of Basis and Purpose of Rule

 

Background of Rule Amendments

 

On November 2, 2010, New York City voters approved a number of Charter revisions including an amendment authorizing the Mayor, by executive order, to consolidate City administrative tribunals into the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (“OATH”). In addition, they required the establishment of a committee whose mandate was to recommend which tribunals or types of cases should be transferred to OATH. The Mayor's Committee on Consolidation of Administrative Tribunals issued its "Report and Recommendations," dated June 7, 2011, containing an Appendix with recommended modifications to rules of the various tribunals ("Report" and "Appendix"). The set of rules contained in the Appendix that were designated as OATH rules, referred to below as "interim rules," would be continued until OATH conducted rulemaking governing the procedures of the tribunals to be under its jurisdiction.

 

As further authorized by the Charter amendments, on June 8, 2011, the Mayor issued E.O. 148, which, among other things, transferred to OATH the administrative tribunals then located within the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (“DOHMH”) and the Taxi and Limousine Commission, effective July 3, 2011.

 

With respect to the Health Tribunal, E.O. 148, by approving the Report and adopting its Appendix, provided that the rules and procedures governing adjudication at the DOHMH Administrative Tribunal would generally be continued with some modifications as interim rules of OATH applicable to the Health Tribunal within OATH. These rules and procedures were contained in Article 7 of the Health Code. This set of interim rules would be continued until such time as OATH completed rulemaking in accordance with the Charter. See E.O. 148, § 1(b) and (c).

 

As further background, two sets of rules containing provisions that are being amended by this rule are included as an endnote to this publication: (1) the interim rules applicable to the Health Tribunal that were contained in the Appendix to the Report, and (2) Article 7 (Administrative Tribunal) of the Health Code as it existed prior to the promulgation of E.O. 148.

 

Moreover, the Board of Health has proposed repealing the remaining provisions of

Article 7 of the Health Code within its jurisdiction and making certain other conforming changes to the Health Code, including adding a new § 3.12 concerning the operations of the Health Tribunal at OATH. The rulemaking actions of DOHMH, the Board of Health, and OATH are being coordinated so that the amendments enacted by each entity will take effect on the same date.

 

Health Code provisions, as described in this proposal, are set forth in a separate portion of Title 24 of the Rules of the City of New York. Unless otherwise specified, references to the Health Code that are included here refer to provisions modified in accordance with E.O. 148.

 

Summary of Rule Amendments

 

OATH will codify these interim rules by incorporating them, with some further modifications reflecting OATH practice, into a new Chapter 6 in Title 48 of Rules of the City of New York. The interim rules will now be renumbered and further modified, and they cover the following areas:

 

·         Replacing all references to the existence and jurisdiction of the DOHMH Tribunal with references to OATH;

 

·         Modifying various hearing procedures relating to adjournments, notifications, defaults, appeals, and other matters in order to reduce the burden on OATH and respondents, as well as to improve record-keeping;

 

·         Providing language assistance services to respondents when needed; and

 

·         Where appropriate, making these procedural rules consistent with OATH's practices generally and with respect to other tribunals.

 

Specific Amendments to be Enacted

 

Section 6-01(“Definitions Specific to this Chapter”) sets forth the meanings of terms specifically applicable to the Health Tribunal.

 

Section 6-02 (“Jurisdiction, powers and duties of the Health Tribunal”) closely tracks the interim rule (Health Code § 7.03) that transferred the jurisdiction from DOHMH to OATH.

 

Health Code § 7.05 (“Director/Chief Administrative Law Judge”) is repealed and not re- enacted because the position “Director of the Administrative Tribunal” would no longer exist and therefore there would no longer be references to such position in the OATH rules.

 

 

Section 6-03 (“Proceedings before the Health Tribunal”) continues, with technical changes, interim rule Health Code § 7.07, which retained the existing DOHMH rule while reflecting the transfer to OATH. The new rule reflects the transfer by specifying that the reference to the “Department” refers to the Health Tribunal at OATH.

 

 

Section 6-04 (“Appearances”) continues, with several changes, interim rule Health Code

§ 7.09, which retained the former DOHMH rule (except for subdivision (e) governing DOHMH’s settlement authority, which will remain with DOHMH with the added requirement that DOHMH notify OATH of all notices of violation that are withdrawn once DOHMH receives payment from respondents). The new rule makes several substantive changes to the interim rule, described below:

 

·         It moves the provision in subdivision (a) for adjourning telephone or electronic hearings for live hearings to Section 6-05 (h). This section addresses procedures for hearings by phone or other electronic media. It also provides that DOHMH, in addition to the respondent and respondent’s authorized representative, may request an adjournment of a scheduled hearing.

 

·         It removes requirements from former § 7.09(e) for certain findings by the hearing examiner before a default judgment is issued, to make them consistent with procedures currently in place at the Environmental Control Board.

 

·         It replaces the requirement for notice of default judgments by certified mail with notice by regular mail. OATH has found that requiring default decisions to be sent by certified mail is an administrative and financial burden on the Tribunal and, in addition, has downsides for respondents, who often do not follow the extra procedures necessary to claim certified mail. The new rule is consistent with procedures currently in place at the Environmental Control Board.

 

·         Finally, it changes the requirement for when motions for vacating default judgments must be received. The original rule requires receipt within 60 days of the Tribunal's mailing of the judgment to the respondent; the new rule requires receipt within 60 days of the date of the decision, resulting in improved record keeping at the Tribunal.

 

 

Section 6-05 (“Hearings and Adjudications by mail, telephone or other electronic media”) continues, with several changes, interim rule Health Code § 7.11, which retained the existing DOHMH rule as a rule of OATH. The new subdivision (f) provides that if a motion is made at a hearing for the presence of the inspector who issued the violation in question, the hearing examiner must only grant the motion if he or she determines that the inspector’s presence would contribute to a full and fair hearing. This change will result in more efficient hearings and reduce unnecessary delay. The new rule is consistent with procedures currently in place at the Environmental Control Board.

 

As a result of a comment received in connection with the published proposal, subdivision (g) has been revised to correct an inadvertent omission relating to the right of any party (not only the respondent) to request the record of a hearing.

 

Subdivision (j) of § 6-05 provides that OATH will provide appropriate language assistance services to respondents when needed. This subdivision describes how the hearing examiner may make such a determination. The new rule is consistent with procedures currently in place at the Environmental Control Board.

 

Section 6-06 (“Subpoenas”) continues, with changes, interim rule Health Code § 7.13, which retained the existing DOHMH rule. To be consistent with OATH authority, the new rule broadens subpoena power by removing the limitation which restricts the issuance of subpoenas to records and witnesses solely within the control of DOHMH.

Section 6-07 (“Disqualification of hearing examiners”) continues, with changes, interim rule Health Code § 7.15, which retained the existing DOHMH rule as a rule of OATH. The new rule makes several substantive changes to the interim rule, described below:

 

·         It modifies the procedure for making a motion for disqualification by eliminating the need to submit supporting affidavits.

 

·         It shortens the time frame for the hearing examiner’s reply to the motion.

 

·         It allows for a brief adjournment for the purpose of prompt appeal to the Chief Administrative Law Judge or his/her designee in the event that a hearing officer denies the motion for disqualification.

 

·         It provides that a party may raise a denial of a motion for disqualification on appeal.

 

·         The new rule is consistent with procedures currently in place at the Environmental

§  Control Board.

 

Section 6-08 (“Appeals”) continues, with changes, interim rule Health Code § 7.17, which superseded the DOHMH provisions for appeals by a “Review Board” and established an Appeals Unit within the Health Tribunal. Having appeals decided by an Appeals Unit within the Health Tribunal rather than the DOHMH Review Board promotes more independent decisionmaking. Additionally, interim rule Health Code § 7.17 granted DOHMH the right to appeal adverse decisions. In addition to those changes, the new rule now does the following:

 

·         It re-orders some of provisions and adjusts some of the technical requirements for notice and filing in subdivision (c).

 

·         It provides that all appeals be decided on written submissions and the record of the hearing.

 

·         It no longer contains a provision of the prior rule that had allowed parties to make requests to appear before the Appeals Unit (in order to be consistent with the changes above).

 

·         In subdivision (d) of the new rule, it states that a respondent may apply for a waiver of prepayment of fines prior to appealing a decision, thereby making the appeals process more accessible to all respondents regardless of their ability to pay the fines.

 

·         Consistent with its experience with appeals at the ECB Tribunal, OATH anticipates that these changes will increase efficiency and mitigate scheduling difficulties and backlogs without an impact on due process.

 

Former Health Code §7.19 (“Disqualification of member of Review Board”) was superseded in the interim rule and is no longer in effect.

 

Section 6-09 (“Registration and disqualification of certain authorized representatives”) continues and makes technical conforming changes to interim rule Health Code § 7.21, which retained the DOHMH rule as a rule of OATH. The prior changes are contained in Article 7 of the Health Code and Chapter 7 of Title 24 of the Rules of the City of New York.

 

Section 6-10 (“Computation of time”) continues, with modification, interim rule Health Code § 7.23, which retained the existing DOHMH rule as a rule of OATH. Under the interim rule and the former DOHMH rule, when a party had the right or requirement to do an act within a period of time from the date of service of a document, and if service of the document was by mail, five days were added to the period of time. In the new Chapter 6 in Title 48 of RCNY, all such time periods, with the exception of a non-appealing party’s time to respond to an appeal, start from the date of a Tribunal decision instead of the date of service of the document. Accordingly, subdivision (b) of this section is modified to provide that if a Tribunal decision is mailed to a party, seven days will be added to period of time within which the party has the right or requirement to act. This change is made to account for the extra time it is expected to take the Health Tribunal to process and mail the decision.

 

 

Effective Date: 
Fri, 07/20/2012

Proposed Rules: Closed to Comments

Agency:
Comment By: 
Thursday, August 2, 2012
Proposed Rules Content: 

 

 

Statement of Basis and Purpose

 

Pursuant to § 282 of Article 7-C of the Multiple Dwelling Law (“Loft Law”), the Loft Board may promulgate rules to ensure compliance with the Loft Law. In June 2010, the Legislature amended the Loft Law by enacting Chapter 147 of the Laws of 2010, which, among other things, amended § 282 of the Loft Law.

 

Section 282 authorizes the Loft Board to designate the Environmental Control Board (“ECB”) to enforce violations of the Loft Law. In accordance with the terms of MDL § 282, this proposed amendment to section 1-07.1 of Title 29 of the Rules of the City of New York clarifies that the procedures for appeal in § 1-07.1, relating to appeals from administrative determinations, do not apply to appeals from ECB determinations.

 

The proposed amendments further clarify that the procedures in § 1-07.1 apply to: 1) appeals from determinations by Loft Board staff with respect to any matter that does not have to go to the full Board for a determination and 2) to determinations by a Loft Board hearing officer with respect to housing maintenance standard violations under § 2-04 of these rules. Finally, the proposed amendments include minor technical changes with respect to the procedures for filing an appeal.

 

 

Subject: 

Opportunity to comment on proposed rule changes to Section 1-07.1 of the Loft Board Rules, relating to appeals of administrative determinations.

Location: 
22 Reade St, 1st Floor
New York, NY 10007
Contact: 

New York City Loft Board
280 Broadway, 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10007
(212) 566-5663

Download Copy of Proposed Rule (.pdf):