Gumbaz v. City of New York Department of Finance Parking Violations Operations

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gumbaz v. City of New York Department of Finance Parking Violations Operations

118 A.D.3d 510, 987 N.Y.S.2d 144

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

DecidedJune 12, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 118 A.D.3d 510 (Gumbaz v. City of New York Department of Finance Parking Violations Operations) 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

Gumbaz v. City of New York Department of Finance Parking Violations Operations, 118 A.D.3d 510, 987 N.Y.S.2d 144 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of respondent, dated August 29, 2012, which found that petitioner violated New York City Traffic Rules (34 RCNY) § 4-08 (c) (3), unanimously annulled, on the law, without costs, the petition in this proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Michael D. Stallman, J.], entered on or about May 1, 2013), granted, and respondent directed to remit to petitioner the $115 fine and $185 towing fee.

At a hearing held on the summons issued by respondent alleging that petitioner violated the traffic rules (34 RCNY 4-08 [c] [3]) by parking in a bus stop, petitioner submitted a series of high-quality photographs of the street where he was parked and provided sworn testimony explaining the photographs’ context and relationship to one another, which established that he was [511]*511lawfully parked at a distance of approximately half a block from the bus stop, thereby rebutting the prima facie case established by the summons (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 238 [1]; 19 RCNY 39-08 [f] [4]). Respondent failed to call any witness or to produce “additional evidence” to refute petitioner’s showing (see Matter of Gruen v Parking Violations Bur. of City of N.Y., 58 AD2d 48, 50 [1st Dept 1977]; Matter of Rosen v New York City, 2014 NY Slip Op 30137[U], *5 [Sup Ct, NY County 2014]).

Concur—Acosta, J.E, DeGrasse, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels and Feinman, JJ.

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

Determination of respondent, dated August 29, 2012, which found that petitioner violated New York City Traffic Rules (34 RCNY) § 4-08 (c) (3), unanimously annulled, on the law, without costs, the petition in this proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Michael D. Stallman, J.], entered on or about May 1, 2013), granted, and respondent directed to remit to petitioner the $115 fine and $185 towing fee.

At a hearing held on the summons issued by respondent alleging that petitioner violated the traffic rules (34 RCNY 4-08 [c] [3]) by parking in a bus stop, petitioner submitted a series of high-quality photographs of the street where he was parked and provided sworn testimony explaining the photographs’ context and relationship to one another, which established that he was [511]*511lawfully parked at a distance of approximately half a block from the bus stop, thereby rebutting the prima facie case established by the summons (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 238 [1]; 19 RCNY 39-08 [f] [4]). Respondent failed to call any witness or to produce “additional evidence” to refute petitioner’s showing (see Matter of Gruen v Parking Violations Bur. of City of N.Y., 58 AD2d 48, 50 [1st Dept 1977]; Matter of Rosen v New York City, 2014 NY Slip Op 30137[U], *5 [Sup Ct, NY County 2014]).

Concur—Acosta, J.E, DeGrasse, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels and Feinman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

118 A.D.3d 510, 987 N.Y.S.2d 144, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gumbaz-v-city-of-new-york-department-of-finance-parking-violations-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack