Taxi and Limousine Commission v



Taxi & Limousine Commission v. Robert L. Belton, Lic. No. 5353530

DECISION

The appeal of Robert L. Belton (the “respondent”) is denied.

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

BACKGROUND

On April 4, 2011, the respondent appealed ALJ Amy Baranoff’s decision dated March 21, 2011. In that decision, the ALJ found the respondent guilty of violating Administrative Code Section 19-506C1 stated in summons number 1336655A.

The ALJ’s decision states:

Issuing officer appeared and testified that at t/p/o, he stopped the subject vehicle because it had a grey inspection sticker dated 11/10. Two passengers were in the car. One had walked into the base, the other had been picked up earlier within the five boroughs. Both were going to different locations within the five boroughs. Driver started working at 6;00 am. TAMIS indicated that driver's hack license had expired on 2/1/11. Driver showed officer a receipt for fees he had paid to [The Taxi and Limousine Commission (the “Commission” or “TLC”)]. He said that he had a hack license which was valid until 2/13. He did not have the license on him. Officer informed driver that his status was still failed to renew and that he must go to TLC to correct it. TLC records indicate that at 9:02 the same morning, after the stop, the condition had been corrected.

Respondent testified that he had gone to renew his license at the end of January, and had taken the drug test the same day.

Issuing officer stated that he believed that there may have been some outstanding fines which prevented the renewal from going through.

I find the testimony and the evidence presented by the officer to be the more credible. Based upon the information in the records, which was testified to by the officer, the respondent's license renewal had not come through until after the stop. The respondent therefore is in violation. The summons is sustained.

_________________

1 Unlicensed vehicle engaging in for hire activity.

On appeal, the respondent argues:

I was in full compliance of renewal of my TLC license prior to the date of 2/23/11.

I am not the owner of the vehicle and for what[ever] reason the officer found [necessary] to stop the vehicle, [it] was not [a] fault of my own.

My TLC license was in the process of being mailed to me prior to this date 2/23/2011.

I took the drug test, paid fees all with the intention of renewing my TLC license.

So I was not illegally driving.

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

ANALYSIS

There is no exception for a driver who is in the process of renewing his license (see Taxi & Limousine Commission v. Kamal M. Hassan, Lic. No. 5137147 [May 12, 2008]). It is the respondent’s responsibility to make sure his license has been properly renewed and in his possession on or before the expiration date. Believing it is in the mail several weeks after the expiration date is not a defense to a violation of Administrative Code Section 19-506C.

Dated: September 2, 2011

OATH Taxi and Limousine Appeals Unit

By: Mark H. Snyder

Administrative Law Judge

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

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

Google Online Preview   Download