IN RE: Hunter SEVERINI (2025)

Determination of the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (OATH), dated April 27, 2023, which, after a hearing, affirmed a violation of Administrative Code of the City of New York § 24–112(a) and imposed a civil penalty of $400, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order, Supreme Court, New York County [Arlene P. Bluth, J.], entered on or about April 13, 2024), dismissed, without costs.

Supreme Court properly transferred the case under CPLR 7804(g) because petitioner raised an issue of substantial evidence by challenging factual findings made by the Hearing Officer (see Matter of McLaughlin v. New York City Hous. Auth., 171 A.D.3d 518, 519, 95 N.Y.S.3d 821 [1st Dept. 2019]).

OATH's determination is supported by substantial evidence (see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v. State Div. of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d 176, 180, 408 N.Y.S.2d 54, 379 N.E.2d 1183 [1978]).  The record shows that petitioner received a disqualification letter because his video and photographic evidence did not support his allegation that the subject vehicle was idling.  Following his receipt of the letter, petitioner submitted three more complaints, each with nearly identical allegations, photographs, and videos, changing only the address of where the violation occurred and one letter in the vehicle's license plate.  It is reasonable to infer that petitioner was attempting to mislead respondent New York City Department of Environmental Protection and circumvent his previous disqualifications.  This deception established a violation under Administrative Code § 24–112(a), which prohibits persons from “knowingly mak[ing] a false or misleading statement” to the department.

Petitioner's claim of agency bias is “unavailing in the absence of any proof that the outcome of the proceeding flowed from the alleged bias” (Matter of Cyrus v. O'Neill, 184 A.D.3d 499, 500, 124 N.Y.S.3d 181 [1st Dept. 2020]).

A remand to the agency, which typically occurs “where the agency has made the type of substantial error that constitutes an irregularity in vital matters” (Matter of Peckham v. Calogero, 54 A.D.3d 27, 28, 861 N.Y.S.2d 316 [1st Dept. 2008], affd 12 N.Y.3d 424, 883 N.Y.S.2d 751, 911 N.E.2d 813 [2009] [internal quotation marks omitted]), would not have been appropriate in this case.  Contrary to petitioner's assertion, the reviewer who issued the disqualification letter for petitioner's first complaint did not need to testify at the hearing.  The reviewer who testified at the hearing issued the disqualification letters for petitioner's second, third, and fourth complaints.  Petitioner's violation of Administrative Code § 24–112(a) stemmed from repeatedly submitting the same evidence in support of those three complaints.

We have considered petitioner's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.