CASE STUDIES

Back

Department of Consumer Affairs Default Decision Vacated Without Hearing Following Motion by Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C.

By Adam Leitman Bailey


A Parking Operations Company retained Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. to defend a Department of Consumer Affairs violation that alleged the parking lot contained more cars than were permitted under the issued license.

The violation had decided against Respondent on default due to a non appearance on the scheduled hearing date by Respondent. Immediately on receipt of the file, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. appeared at Department of Consumer Affairs Hearings division to request a new hearing date but were told that Department of Consumer Affairs would not hold entertain a request for rescheduling ex parte. Later that day Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. faxed a letter to all sides informing them that they would be seeking a new hearing date on the following day.

On the following day, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. appeared at Department of Consumer Affairs Hearings Division and were able to speak to a Settlement Officer. Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. requested a new hearing on the grounds that Respondent was not properly served and that Respondent had a meritorious defence. The Department of Consumer Affairs Settlement Officer stated that as the matter was already in default, he could only consider a new hearing with the permission of the Department of Consumer Affairs.

On the following day, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. appeared at Department of Consumer Affairs Offices to seek their permission to reschedule a hearing. Department of Consumer Affairs refused to allow the default to be lifted and stated that they would need evidence of the meritorious defense before they would allow a hearing to be rescheduled. However, Department of Consumer Affairs reluctantly agreed to stay the entering of the default to allow Respondent to submit such evidence.

On the following day, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. submitted a “motion to reschedule” to Department of Consumer Affairs Hearing Division and Department of Consumer Affairs Offices demonstrating that three separate licenses applied to this particular parking lot and that the Inspecting Officer had only cited one of these.

Two weeks later, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. received notice from Department of Consumer Affairs that they would be vacating the decision and order and withdrawing all related charges.

Pete Reid, Esq. appeared on behalf of Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C.

Related Practices

Fire and Building Violations

Related Attorneys

Adam Leitman Bailey

Related Content

Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C.

NEW YORK REAL ESTATE ATTORNEYS