Celerino v. City of New York Office of the Comptroller

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Celerino v. City of New York Office of the Comptroller

282 A.D.2d 229, 722 N.Y.S.2d 390, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3408

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

DecidedApril 5, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 282 A.D.2d 229 (Celerino v. City of New York Office of the Comptroller) 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

Celerino v. City of New York Office of the Comptroller, 282 A.D.2d 229, 722 N.Y.S.2d 390, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3408 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael Stallman, J.), entered February 29, 2000, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[230]*230The complaint, seeking monetary damages, punitive damages and injunctive relief for the “negligence and carelessness of the defendant” in enacting changes to the Taxicab Owners and Drivers Rules, which plaintiff claims led to a decrease in the value of his individual taxi medallion, fails to state a cognizable legal claim. We have previously held that the challenged rule changes, enacted by the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC) and not by the present defendant, are lawful and the result of a valid exercise of the TLC’s rule-making authority (see Matter of New York City Comm. for Taxi Safety v New York City Taxi & Limousine Commn., 256 AD2d 136). Additionally, the new TLC rules and regulations do not amount to an unconstitutional taking of plaintiffs property (see Connolly v Pension Benefit Guar. Corp., 475 US 211, 224-225; Medical Socy. v Sobol, 192 AD2d 78, 82, appeal dismissed 82 NY2d 802). Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Ellerin, Lerner and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael Stallman, J.), entered February 29, 2000, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[230]*230The complaint, seeking monetary damages, punitive damages and injunctive relief for the “negligence and carelessness of the defendant” in enacting changes to the Taxicab Owners and Drivers Rules, which plaintiff claims led to a decrease in the value of his individual taxi medallion, fails to state a cognizable legal claim. We have previously held that the challenged rule changes, enacted by the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC) and not by the present defendant, are lawful and the result of a valid exercise of the TLC’s rule-making authority (see Matter of New York City Comm. for Taxi Safety v New York City Taxi & Limousine Commn., 256 AD2d 136). Additionally, the new TLC rules and regulations do not amount to an unconstitutional taking of plaintiffs property (see Connolly v Pension Benefit Guar. Corp., 475 US 211, 224-225; Medical Socy. v Sobol, 192 AD2d 78, 82, appeal dismissed 82 NY2d 802). Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Ellerin, Lerner and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D.2d 229, 722 N.Y.S.2d 390, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3408, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/celerino-v-city-of-new-york-office-of-the-comptroller-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack