The Judge Will Hear Your 223,000 Excuses Now (18OATH) (18OATH)

From both perspectives you can’t make this stuff up. It’s what makes New York ....New York Gotta love it!

I think there should be a police officer ready to give summonses to the out of control bikers in downtown Brooklyn. What a nightmare to just get around. I need eyes like a fly to be able to see the people flying by me every which way on illegal electric bikes, bicycles, skateboards, and citi bikes.

For most people these interactions are their principal dealings with the justice system. While they may seem trivial to most, they play a huge role in forming people's opinions about our government and our system of justice. It is very important to get it right.

Is this method of policing really helping New York becomes a better place? It seems that’s the people who are trying to make themselves something are being targeted, while the rich can seamlessly do whatever they want. I want empanadas from the lady selling them from her street cart. I wanna hear music in the subway. Can we please let New Yorkers be New Yorkers? Please and thank you, NYPD.

I had my own run in with this portion of NYC's legal system when I was in college in NYC. I was issued a summons for selling tee shirts that I had designed without a license on what turned out to be public property, not school property, where I had permission to sell them. The police officer who wrote the summons told me that there had been a complaint (they were politically themed tee shirts, and undoubtedly the politics rubbed someone the wrong way) and was obviously unhappy writing the summons (and confiscating my shirts). He urged me repeatedly to fight it - so I did. When I got to my administrative hearing, the officer was present. The judge began the process by reading the particulars of the case... 'occurred at 10:15AM at the intersection of Washington Square North and West Fourth Street..." "Wait, where?" said the officer. The judge repeated what the summons said. "Oh, that's wrong - those streets are parallel!". "Case dismissed!" I even got my tee shirts back.

My wife made an illegal left turn near Union Square, because the truck in front of her was blocking the sign. I was a passenger and came as a witness, who spoke to "judge" separately, after my wife pleaded her side. I said she was trying to make a left turn (pointing to my right--I have a problem with L-R) as judge stopped me and asked me again to describe what had happened. Because he realized I was not able to be a good liar, the violation was dropped. Only time that small "disability" helped us, otherwise it has been years of wrong turns, and stepped on toes at square dances, etc! She still loves me...

My experience is that millenials and younger are the first to violate the laws that allow us to live, work and socialize together in close proximity to each other. Like those in the gym (which we all pay for) who are continually on their cell phones talking loudly so as to be heard above the din of treadmills and weight machines, despite clearly posted rules against cell phone use. Or walking down the street with their heads buried in their personal devices and who will walk right into you rather than look up. Or driving at breakneck speeds, weaving in and out of traffic and cutting you off, and who quickly give you the finger when you honk in protest. Self-serving, self-indulgent, and oblivious to the rights of those around them.

...as if a pack of homework-eating dogs is roaming the streets. Wonderful writing and a very enjoyable read.

What a remarkable and refreshing article. The legal system for the rest of us. Proud to learn one of the hearing officers understands that he is the face of the legal system. Nary a tweet to be heard.

When I lived in Louisiana, at 14 years old, I'd go to the local courtroom. The cases and exchanges between people were so much better than any movie you can ever see. This reminds me of those times. Thank you.

It is refreshing to read human NYC stories like this. A break from Political and tradedy stories,

Human stories like this is what I love about the NYT, Hilarious indeed! Keep it up. Abdi.

I'm pleased to read that the judges in these proceedings listen to the people in front of them. But that doesn't seem to apply to traffic court in NYC. I recently fought a ticket for failure to yield to pedestrians. The officer contradicted himself and eventually admitted they had just stepped off the sidewalk while I was turning into the left lane, well over 40 feet away from the curb. And they had a Don't Walk signal. Legally he didn't satisfy all the necessary elements to prove his case. Nonetheless I was found guilty, as were all other defendants who went before me. The judge did reduce my fine- my guess is that she had some doubt but is under pressure to not find too many people not guilty.

Revenue Generation -----There is generally zero enforcement of some rules such as illegal parking spaces next to houses, or trash can lids, or illegal apartments, or business run out of residential houses. Then inspectors come and give tickets but it seems that it is usually to generate revenue for the city. Usually ticketing is like shooting fish in a barrel because it is a total surprise that the rule is being enforced. With automobiles we created a 25 MPH speed limit which 100% or drivers violate 100% of the trips they take. They don't give tickets where it is most dangerous but where they know you will accelerate high over the limit. For litter they don't give tickets for littering but to store owners who can't keep up with the traffic and who have litter blown onto their walks. I don't have a problem with rules or enforcement. I just wish I felt the purpose of the enforcement was to ensure compliance and not to generate revenue.

It would seem that a 44% dismissal rate indicates that the system works quite well in that nearly half the summonses are not upheld, and their dismissal occasions little or no fuss. Their initial issuance does, however, create a warning, and therefore their mere issuance serves a presumed social good, that the law must be complied with. What the article does not address, unfortunately, is whether or not the hearings are scheduled or held on a timely basis, both as to initial scheduling and actual processing on the day for which the appointment had earlier been set. Reasonable efficiency matters to those who have been issued summonses.

So the people doing this very worthy job can't work more than 1,000 hours or they would be due to get retirement benefits. There is something wrong with this system.

I was speeding because I was running out of gas and needed to find a gas station quick!!

This system sounds pretty fair, considering the nature of the offenses charged. At least there is a chance for the ordinary person to state his/her case, and hearing officers who sound more or less human. It's actually reassuring to read the article. I once sued Pan Am in small claims court in NY when my suitcase was lost going to Brazil, and the experience was a complete nightmare. Jam packed court, necessitating postponement of hearing twice after long wait. Extremely unpleasant (but I won).

After OATH renders the decision and a civil penalty is imposed....meaning a small monetary fine...it would be very interesting to find out the percentage of penalties that are actually paid. A lot of people just blow it off!

These summonses are out of court statements offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. That makes them hearsay. Under what exception to the hearsay rules are they admissible? Are these basic rules of evidence not applicable? If not, are the respondents entitled to a trial de novo with the protection of the rules of evidence?

I was once called to court for a supposed parking infraction that the judge dismissed. While waiting, I got to hear a lot of excuses. A man of Chinese descent said he had been speeding because he was so excited to meet his sister at the airport, where she would be coming from China. The judge looked at his record and asked, "These other tickets--more sisters?" A young man who had failed to respond to a series of summonses said, "Judge, I know it's a bad habit, but i don't open my mail."

Sometimes people have a problem wrapping their brains around the fact that evidence is not proof, but proof is an assembly of evidence that establishes or proves a fact. There are different levels of proof depending on the strength of the evidence presented. For example, "substantial evidence" or "preponderance evidence" or "beyond a reasonable doubt." Under the law, OATH as an administrative tribunal can but does not follow the lowest standard. Before some of these cases were moved to OATH they may have been judged by lower standards. An agency was claiming that a summons was proof merely because it was a summons. When governments take that position; That's how revolutions get started. Then whether a particular summons is written properly enough to even legally constitute a charge is another matter.

"While the job carries little prestige, the hearing officers understand that for most people who appear before them, they are the face of the legal system." Said the NY Times writer, a paper that is losing its prestige as each day passes. --signed one of those judges

"a voyage into the small intestine of bureaucracy" . perfectly sums it up. absolutely necessary process that is not pretty, and can be ugly.

This is a very interesting read. Thanks for publishing this.

Actually, park-after-dark and public urination are both misdemeanors. If you plead guilty and pay the fine, the offense will stay on your record permanently. That's not the same thing as a parking ticket. The repercussions are much more significant than your worst speeding ticket really. On top of that, despite what the reporting officer might tell you, the offense requires an in-court appearance. You can't just plead guilty and pay online. You physically need to be present in court on the designated date or hire an attorney to appear on your behalf. The court officer won't willingly clarify these details either. I dare you try calling. How do I know this you ask? I got charged for park-after-dark while visiting my brother in Brooklyn. The funny part is there was a couple with a stroller on the bench next to us while the officer was writing up the chit. He said goodnight to them when he left. After complete assurances from the police officer I wouldn't be required to show up in court, I was required to show up in court. I ended up hiring attorney because the attorney's fee was less than another plane ticket to New York. The case was eventually let go in adjournment in contemplation of dismissal. If I hadn't done my homework though, me an my brother both would have to explain this story to every employer we ever encounter. It will show up on a background check. I understand the purpose of the law is to empower police officers. However, the practical application is absurd.

I love this: *** “One of the odder pieces of evidence we got was from someone who had gotten a summons from the department of health for having a rat infestation on her property,” said James Moore, a supervising hearing officer. “Her entire defense was that ‘I have many cats on the property to control the rat population.’ She submitted photos of all her cats. Except that two of them were raccoons. *** Andy Newman is my favorite NYT writer.

Good system. Unfortunately, I have been in a few speeding cases myself (though no accidents or even unsafe driving). I always thought these were mainly a way for the city to make $$$. Often, even the cop writing the ticket would helpfully reduce the charge to a non-point offense and ask me to pay the "fine" by mail to avoid wasting my time!! At least here, over 40% of the cases are dismissed.

Sensible, solid government thinking and action. Are you sure this story is from NYC?

Oh Boy this article is great. Just one of the reasons I love NY.

This was a good read.

“One agency was arguing, ‘How can that be?’ And our response is ‘Where’s the evidence that rebuts the defense?’ And the guy says, ‘Here’s the evidence — the summons — the summons is proof!’ No, that’s the allegation, the summons isn’t proof.” At the PVB, I'v had a hearing officers plainly state that the summons is Prima Facie evidence & all they need to find you guilty. So much for "the summons isn't proof."

this is the best thanks NYT! plus also beautiful portrait work from Gregg Vigliotti

Many times, justice is in the eyes of the beholder. Being paid by the state, there may be an inherent conflict of interest in recovering the salary the judges receive, potentially a biased result, and declaring guilty an individual for a minor infraction that should have been resolved with a friendly reminder. Who said we humans must be perfect in our daily lives, an impossible task...of which the state is all too aware of? Judges, like traffic ticket givers, are charged with collecting funds...other than taxes. If the system becomes too onerous and unjust for too many, do not be surprised if our citizenry becomes cynical and uncooperative in contributing to peace in society.

what a great article. I am a graduate of an Ivy League law school and I find this justice system to be the sort of justice system we should all strive for. Too many people feel beaten down by the system. here they get a chance to make their case, are treated with dignity , and thus, they feel ,even if they lose, that justice was served. That is what it is all about. good for you NYC.

this is basically the city shaking down residents for the sole purpose of raising revenue. absurd and despicable.

Judge Judy without the sarcasm.

OATH may be less crooked than the PVB or the Motor Vehicles hearings, but all are crooked nonetheless. Unless I read a different Constitution, it says that people have a right (1) to a public trial, (2) to be confronted with witnesses against them, and (3) have means to compel testimony from others. None of those rights exist in these closed systems. Just walk in, as a private citizen, and try to listen to a case. The public is not allowed in without special permission. Show pictures that a parking summons is in clear violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law. The LAW is what the issuing officer says. And there is no EFFCETIVE way to get court review. Sure, I could bring an Article 78 proceeding ($500 filing fee + almost impossible without an attorney who specializes in these), but as a practicle matter, there is no redress.

The NYT is much too liberal for me, and I skip most of the front page. But this is the kind of article that I subscribe for. A gem.