Taxi & Limousine Commission v
Taxi & Limousine Commission v. Linden Car Services, Inc., Lic. No. B01700
DECISION
The appeal of the Taxi & Limousine Commission (the “Commission”) is denied.
The decision of the Administrative Law Judge (the “ALJ”) is affirmed.
BACKGROUND
On October 2, 2008, the Commission appealed ALJ Inayat Ilahi Shaikh’s decision dated September 25, 2008. In that decision, the ALJ dismissed the Rule 6-18D(2)[1] violation stated in summons number 1213211A.
The ALJ’s decision states, in pertinent part:
The Inspector testified that he called Linden Car [S]ervice Tel. No. 718-481-8393 and they dispatched the respondent to pick him up and they also confirmed that the white Car has been sent and waiting for me. [At] that time the Inspector approached the Car and identified himself and asked the driver his [credentials].
The respondent TLC license was expired and he stated that he already filed renewal application with the TLC and did not hear anything as yet. The Base was therefore issued two Summons for 6-12K2 and 6-18D violations.
The Counsel argues that that the 6-18d2 requires more than sending an unlicensed driver whose application for approval was pending.
The [6-18D2] requires that the licensee [committed] a willful act of Omission or commission which is against the best interest of public. In this case the vehicle was licensed and the driver’s TLC license expired and he handed over to the Inspector the expired license. As per the [Inspector] testimony the driver was issued a separate [] Summon for that violation.
The [evidence] establish that the respondent violated the Rule 6-12K2 as such is imposed the fine accordingly.
There is not enough [evidence] to find the respondent in violation of the Rule [6-18D2] as such this violation is dismissed.
On appeal, the Commission argues, in relevant part:
The Commission submits that rule 6-18(d)(2) violation was triggered by rule 6-12(k)(2) violation but each of the rules has different elements to establish its violation. The fact that a transaction triggers the violations of various rules does not mean that only one violation can be sustained; the ALJ should determine each and every violation on its merit. In this instance, the Respondent dispatched an unlicensed driver which triggered rule 6-12(k)(2) violation and in doing so, committed an act against the best interests of the public, in that, the driver was
not licensed thereby subjecting the public to risks associated with an unlicensed driver operating for-hire in New York City.
Linden Car Services, Inc. (the “respondent”) did not file a response to the Commission’s appeal.
ANALYSIS
The ALJ is correct in dismissing the Rule 6-18D(2) violation.
Where charges are covered by a specific rule and there is no evidence of separate actions or omissions which violate Rule 6-18D(2), it is error to find additional violations based upon an act against the best interests of the public (see Taxi & Limousine Commission v. Sunshine Car Service, Lic. No. B01623 [October 17, 2008], see also, Taxi & Limousine Commission v. State Car & Limo Svc, Lic. No. B01982 [May 4, 2009]). This is because upholding the additional charges, based upon the same evidence and without more, would result in duplicative violations (see, Taxi & Limousine Commission v. Acapulco Car Service Inc., Lic. No. B00968 [October 25, 2007]). Although a respondent’s actions may be considered to be an act against the best interests of the public in addition to a violation of a specific rule, duplicative violations should not be sustained because a respondent “should not be punished a second time for the same misconduct” (see Taxi & Limousine Commission v. Sheikh, OATH Index No. 143/08 [September 13, 2007]).
Here, the ALJ found the respondent guilty of a rule that pertained to the specific facts of dispatching an unlicensed driver [6-12K(2)] based upon the evidence presented. Since there was no separate or additional evidence of an act against the best interests of the public, the ALJ correctly found that the 6-18D(2) violation was not independently sustained and was duplicative.
Dated: June 22, 2010
Charles R. Fraser
Deputy Commissioner for Legal Affairs
By: Michael A. Schwartz
Administrative Law Judge, Appeals Unit
-----------------------
[1] Act against the best interests of the public.
................
................
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.