BACKGROUND



Taxi & Limousine Commission v. Mario Castro, Lic. No. 5260344

DECISION

The appeal of Mario Castro (the “respondent”) is denied.

The decision of the Administrative Law Judge (the “ALJ”) is affirmed.

BACKGROUND

On March 28, 2011, the respondent appealed the decision of ALJ Vanessa Lewis dated March 28, 2011. In that decision, the ALJ found the respondent guilty of violating Administrative Code Section 19-504G[1] as stated in summons number UR0001848.

The ALJ’s decision states:

I find the Respondent in violation of Administrative Code 19-504g.

[The Taxi and Limousine Commission (the “Commission” or “TLC”)] stated that the owner license is current and the car has been unaffiliated with a base since 11-2009.

Respondent testified that he [surrendered] the plates before diamond expired.

I find the owner in violation of Admin. Code 19-504g and order the revocation [of the] TLC license.

On appeal the respondent argues that the ALJ did not ask him to provide proof that he surrendered his plates before the hearing date.

The Commission did not file a response to the respondent’s appeal.

ANALYSIS

The ALJ’s decision is correct.

An ALJ’s findings will not be disturbed on appeal if those findings are based on substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as

Taxi & Limousine Commission v. Mario Castro, Lic. No. 5260344

adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact (see Taxi & Limousine Commission v. Exec U Car Limo Inc., Lic. No. 5179939 [September 27, 2007] citing 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v. State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176 [July 13, 1978]).

Rule 19-504G states that the commission shall revoke any license for nonuse in the event it shall determine that the vehicle has not been operated for sixty consecutive days, provided that such failure to operate shall not have been caused by strike, riot, war or other public catastrophe or other act beyond the control of the owner; or in the event the owner has sold his or her vehicle and has failed to replace the vehicle within one hundred and twenty days from the date of the sale. However, in the event that it is shown to the commission by competent proof that an owner-driver has been disabled through illness, his or her license shall not be revoked because of such nonuse as provided in this subdivision.

A review of the audiotape reveals that the respondent did not state or give the ALJ any indication that he had proof that he surrendered the plates before the hearing date. He presented such evidence on appeal. The respondent cannot submit evidence

on appeal that he did not submit at the hearing.

The finding of the ALJ as to the respondent’s car being unaffiliated with a base for more than 60 days is supported by substantial evidence. Commission records show that the respondent was unaffiliated with a base for more than 60 days. Accordingly, the decision is affirmed.

The penalty for violation of Rule 19-504G is mandatory revocation, if the license has not already been revoked. There is no discretion to modify this penalty.

Dated: March 31, 2011

Taxi and Limousine Commission Appeals Unit

By: L. March

Administrative Law Judge, Appeals Unit

[pic] This document was printed on paper containing 30% post-consumer material

-----------------------

[1] Revocation of any vehicle license for 60 consecutive days of nonuse or upon failure to find replacement vehicle within 120 days of vehicle sale. Exception when proof that owner-driver is disabled.

[pic] This document was printed on paper containing 30% post-consumer material

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download