P.O.O.R
People Organized For Our Rights, Inc.
POOR@nyc.rr.com


Online Resource Center.

Menu

Fair Hearings
OTDA Policy
Language Resources
dot
  Fair Hearing Resources:  Not Logged in     
Search Keywords or type in your question (min 3 char.)
PB Home  Back to Documents : Inadequate Notices - Issue at Fair Hearings    
Attached Document:
hanks__12-11-96_memo__18_nycrr_part_358_.pdf


Documents : Inadequate Notices - Issue at Fair Hearings

December 11, 1996 Memo to ALJs from Russell J. Hanks (Policy Clarifications: Inadequate Notice)

This memorandum sets forth Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) policy with respect to the development of an adequate hearing record and related matters.

Under the heading, "Inadequate Notice," at pp. 1-2, Deputy General Counsel for Administrative Hearings Russell J. Hanks explains that

    "The content requirements for notices of intent set forth in Part 358 reflect concern for appellants' due process rights. Where a hearing involves a notice of intent, the hearing officer must review the sufficiency of the notice to access whether it complies with regulatory requirements and whether any deficiencies in the notice impinge on the appellant's due process rights. This assessment must include consideration of the notice's deficiencies, the issues for review, the appellant's circumstances, and the need to direct specific relief. This assessment should be conducted on the record and, where appropriate, reflected in the decision. The hearing officer must determine whether to find a notice void, require the social services district to provide additional information, or grant a recess or adjournment on the appellant's behalf.

    "In evaluating the adequacy of a notice, the hearing officer should consider if the appropriate notice was sent and if the explanation of the district's intended action, contained in the notice, is understandable by the particular appellant. A notice that fails to provide any reason or explanation for an intended action is void. A notice that cites the wrong regulation as justification for the intended action or an unclear explanation, while deficient, may or may not be void. In every case involving a deficient not ice, the hearing officer must ensure that the deficiency does not result in harm to the appellant."
 

 

Created: 5/30/2008
Updated: 5/31/2008