Archive.citylaw.org
Taxi & Limousine Commission v. Kev Cab Corp., Lic. No. 4Y91
DECISION
The Taxi & Limousine Commission’s (the “Commission”) appeal is denied.
The Administrative Law Judge’s (the “ALJ”) decision is correct and affirmed.
BACKGROUND
The Commission appeals ALJ Cassandra Hyppolite’s decision, dated January 8, 2008. In that decision, the ALJ dismissed the Rule §1-60B(1)[1], §1-60B(2)[2], and §1-60C[3] charges stated in summons numbers 1173611A, 1173613A and 1173612A, respectively.
The decision states, in part:
At the time of the stop the driver’s hack license was valid. TLC never suspended the hack license. Resp. does not have access to the status of a driver’s DMV record and therefore can not be held responsible for a driver who operates with a suspended DMV license until notice is given by the Commission. …
Resp. is also not responsible under Rule 1-60C because as per the GPS log, the taxi was dispatched to another driver and that driver logged off well after the summons was issued to driver Ndubuisi Nwagboso. … Finally, Resp did not have knowledge that driver Nwagboso had the vehicle in his possession.
On January 29, 2008, the Commission filed an appeal under Rule 8-13C. On appeal, the Commission stated, in essence that the owner of a taxicab is required to know the status of the driver’s DMV license.
The respondent did not file a response to the Commission’s appeal.
ANALYSIS
The ALJ properly dismissed the summonses.
TLC Rules do not impose on a taxicab owner the obligation to know or check the DMV status of its authorized drivers (see, Taxi & Limousine v. Shannon View Cab Corp., Lic. No. 6L50 [July 26, 2007]; Taxi & Limousine Commission v. Lai-Ming Cheng, Lic. No. 1C27 [June 24, 2008]).
Neither the failure of the respondent to take steps to obtain access to the DMV database nor its lack of knowledge of the DMV status of its driver’s DMV license is enough, absent other evidence, to prove a violation of any TLC rule (see, Taxi & Limousine Commission v. Juan Alvarado, Lic. No. 3F63 [December 30, 2008]). Therefore, since the charges against the respondent are based solely on its failure to ascertain the driver’s DMV status, the summonses were properly dismissed. The Commission’s other arguments have been considered and determined to be without merit.
Dated: April 22, 2009
Charles R. Fraser
Deputy Commissioner for Legal Affairs
By: Craig P. Lehner
Administrative Law Judge, Appeals Unit
-----------------------
[1] Act of fraud, misrepresentation or larceny
[2] Action against the best interests of the public
[3] Permitting taxicab to be used for unlawful purpose
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.