From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Faison v. N.Y.C. Taxi & Limousine Comm'n

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Oct 1, 2019
176 A.D.3d 416 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)

Opinion

9962 Index 101530/18

10-01-2019

In re Solomon R. FAISON, Jr., Petitioner, v. The NEW YORK CITY TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION, Respondent.

Solomon R. Faison, Jr., appellant pro se. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Diana Lawless of counsel), for respondent.


Solomon R. Faison, Jr., appellant pro se.

Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Diana Lawless of counsel), for respondent.

Friedman, J.P., Tom, Webber, Gesmer, Oing, JJ.

Determination of respondent New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC), dated August 24, 2018, which found that petitioner had allowed a vehicle to be operated for hire without a permit in violation of Administrative Code of the City of New York § 19–506(b)(1), and imposed a fine of $1,500, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Joan A. Madden, J.], entered February 20, 2019), dismissed, without costs.

Respondent's determination is supported by substantial evidence, namely an undercover TLC officer's testimony that petitioner agreed to provide him with a ride from the airport to a local college for money ( Matter of Williams v. New York City Taxi & Limousine Commn. , 225 A.D.2d 502, 503, 640 N.Y.S.2d 39 [1st Dept. 1996], lv. denied 88 N.Y.2d 812, 649 N.Y.S.2d 379, 672 N.E.2d 605 [1996] ). Petitioner testified that he agreed to give the TLC officer a ride to the boulevard, where he could catch a cab, and the ride was of no monetary value, but if the passenger wanted to give him a tip, it was fine. The Hearing Officer credited the TLC officer's testimony, a determination "largely unreviewable by the courts, who are disadvantaged in such matters because their review is confined to a lifeless record" (see Berenhaus v. Ward , 70 N.Y.2d 436, 443, 522 N.Y.S.2d 478, 517 N.E.2d 193 [1987] ).

The penalty imposed is not so disproportionate to the violation as to shock the conscience, since it was within the statutory penalty for the first-time violation (see Administrative Code of the City of New York § 19–506[e][1] ).


Summaries of

Faison v. N.Y.C. Taxi & Limousine Comm'n

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Oct 1, 2019
176 A.D.3d 416 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)
Case details for

Faison v. N.Y.C. Taxi & Limousine Comm'n

Case Details

Full title:In re Solomon R. Faison, Jr., Petitioner, v. The New York City Taxi and…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Oct 1, 2019

Citations

176 A.D.3d 416 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)
176 A.D.3d 416
2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 7024

Citing Cases

Smith v. City of New York

Petitioner's right to confront witnesses against him was not violated merely because the undercover officer…