Ali v. New York City Taxi & Limousine Commissioner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ali v. New York City Taxi & Limousine Commissioner

297 A.D.2d 568, 747 N.Y.2d 161, 747 N.Y.S.2d 161, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8761

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedSeptember 24, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 297 A.D.2d 568 (Ali v. New York City Taxi & Limousine Commissioner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ali v. New York City Taxi & Limousine Commissioner, 297 A.D.2d 568, 747 N.Y.2d 161, 747 N.Y.S.2d 161, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8761 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Revocation of petitioner’s hack license was appropriate (see Administrative Code of City of NY § 19-512.1 [a]). Regardless of whether a finding that a taxi driver committed a willful act [569]*569“against the best interests of the public” (see 35 RCNY 2-61 [a] [2]) can be premised solely on a finding of service refusal (compare, 35 RCNY 2-50, 2-87; Administrative Code § 19-507), the presently contested finding of a section 2-61 violation is sustainable by evidence that petitioner fled the prospective customer with a passenger door open (see 35 RCNY 2-21 [b] [2]; Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1162). For this reason, Matter of Arif v New York City Taxi & Limousine Commn. (2002 NY Slip Op 50266 [u]) and Pierre-Lys v New York City Taxi & Limousine Commn. (2002 NY Slip Op 50068 [u]) are factually distinguishable, and we need not and do not reach the specific issues presented in those decisions.

Substantial evidence supports each of the three violation determinations. The penalty imposed is not excessive. Concur— Williams, P.J., Tom, Rosenberger and Friedman, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Revocation of petitioner’s hack license was appropriate (see Administrative Code of City of NY § 19-512.1 [a]). Regardless of whether a finding that a taxi driver committed a willful act [569]*569“against the best interests of the public” (see 35 RCNY 2-61 [a] [2]) can be premised solely on a finding of service refusal (compare, 35 RCNY 2-50, 2-87; Administrative Code § 19-507), the presently contested finding of a section 2-61 violation is sustainable by evidence that petitioner fled the prospective customer with a passenger door open (see 35 RCNY 2-21 [b] [2]; Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1162). For this reason, Matter of Arif v New York City Taxi & Limousine Commn. (2002 NY Slip Op 50266 [u]) and Pierre-Lys v New York City Taxi & Limousine Commn. (2002 NY Slip Op 50068 [u]) are factually distinguishable, and we need not and do not reach the specific issues presented in those decisions.

Substantial evidence supports each of the three violation determinations. The penalty imposed is not excessive. Concur— Williams, P.J., Tom, Rosenberger and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

297 A.D.2d 568, 747 N.Y.2d 161, 747 N.Y.S.2d 161, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8761, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ali-v-new-york-city-taxi-limousine-commissioner-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack