Welde v New York City Dept. of Envtl. Protection 2024 NY Slip Op 30024(U) January 5, 2024 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 154338/2023 Judge: Sabrina Kraus Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. INDEX NO. 154338/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 36 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. SABRINA KRAUS PART 57TR Justice ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------X INDEX NO. 154338/2023 ERNEST LOGAN WELDE, 10/24/2023, Plaintiff, MOTION DATE 10/31/2023
- V - MOTION SEQ. NO. _ _0_0_1_0_0_2__
NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION Defendant. ------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------X
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 were read on this motion to/for ARTICLE 78 (BODY OR OFFICER)
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 were read on this motion to/for JUDGMENT - DEFAULT
BACKGROUND
Section 24-163(a) of the Administrative Code of the City of New York ("Administrative
Code") prohibits the idling of vehicles, with limited exceptions, for more than three minutes.
Under Administrative Code§ 24-182(a), any natural person ("Citizen Reporter") may serve a
complaint on DEP alleging that a person has violated Administrative Code § 24-163 by allowing
a bus or truck to idle for more than three minutes. Such a complaint must be served upon DEP
"together with evidence of such violation." Administrative Code § 24-182( a).
Petitioner has submitted approximately 9,799 citizen idling complains to DEP - 3,642 of
those complaints were submitted in 2023 alone. In the instant proceeding, Petitioner is
challenging the denial of nearly 400 idling complaints submitted to DEP since the end of 2022.
154338/2023 WELDE, ERNEST LOGAN vs. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF Page 1 of 7 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Motion No. 001 002
1 of 7 [* 1] INDEX NO. 154338/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 36 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2024
Respondent cross-moves for dismissal pursuant to CPLR §§ 321 l(a)(5), (a)(2), (a)(7), on
the grounds that Petitioner's claims are time-barred, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction,
and the petition fails to state a cause of action.
For the reasons set forth below, the petition is denied, Petitioner's motion for a default
judgment is denied and the cross-motion to dismiss is granted.
DISCUSSION
254 of Petitioner's Challenged Complaints are Time-Barred
A proceeding brought pursuant to Article 78 of the CPLR "must be commenced within
four months after the determination to be reviewed becomes final and binding upon the petitioner
or the person whom he represents in law or in fact .... " CPLR § 217(1).
Any challenges to the final determinations issued by DEP prior to January 12, 2023, are
time-barred by the four-month statute of limitations for Article 78 proceedings. Of the nearly 400
complaints challenged in the instant proceeding, 254 of them had final determinations issued
before January 12, 2023, and are time-barred.
The time barred complaints and the final determinations for same are listed in NYSCEF
Doc #s 16, 17, 18, and 189. The petition is dismissed as to said claims.
Complaints Reconsidered by DEP
DEP has reconsidered the complaint numbers 2023-56577; 2023- 33133; 2023-50412;
and 2023-48840 and has either issued the violation or will allow Petitioner to pursue the
violation. The primary relief sought against Respondent for these complaints was for DEP to
reverse its determination to deny those complaints. Here, DEP has reconsidered these four
complaints and reversed its decision.
154338/2023 WELDE, ERNEST LOGAN vs. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF Page 2 of 7 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Motion No. 001 002
2 of 7 [* 2] INDEX NO. 154338/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 36 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2024
As Petitioner was granted this portion of the relief requested for, Petitioner's claim is not
justiciable and is moot, and the Petition is dismissed as to said claims.
Remaining Challenged Denials
Of the remaining 100 complaints Petitioner seeks to challenge, DEP' s denials were based
on one of two grounds; 1) the vehicle did not have commercial plates and, thus, did not qualify
as a commercial vehicle eligible for a violation under RCNY, or 2) the complaint was duplicative
of another complaint submitted the same day for the same vehicle at the same location.
To the extent that the Petition appears to seek relief in the form of mandamus to compel
DEP to pursue, or allow Petitioner to pursue, specific complaints, Petitioner is not entitled to
such relief. Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy used to compel performance by an
administrative body or officer of a duty positively required by law. See Hamptons Hosp. & Med.
Ctr., Inc. v. Moore, 52 N.Y.2d 88 (1981); Gimprich v. Bd. ofEduc., 306 N.Y. 401 (1954).
However, the mandamus remedy is available only where there is a clear and absolute right to the
relief sought, and the body or officer whose duty it is to enforce such right has refused to
perform such duty. See Brusco v. Braun, 84 N.Y.2d 674, 678 (1994); County of Fulton v. State of
New York, 76 N.Y.2d 675, 678 (1990); Lisa v. Bd. ofEduc., 83 A.D.2d 949 (2d Dept. 1981).
Petitioner is not entitled to an order that DEP allow him to self-prosecute the complaints.
DEP notified Petitioner that the complaints were denied because another citizen already
submitted a complaint, and that only one violation would be issued per occurrence per day and
location for all vehicles.
Under Administrative Code§ 24-178(a)(3)(ii), a penalty can be imposed once per day per
violation of Administrative Code§ 24-163(a). DEP has interpreted, and OATH has held, that,
when read in conjunction, Administrative Code§§ 24-163(a) and 24-178(a)(3)(ii) only allow
154338/2023 WELDE, ERNEST LOGAN vs. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF Page 3 of 7 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Motion No. 001 002
3 of 7 [* 3] INDEX NO. 154338/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 36 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2024
OATH to impose one penalty per day for each idling violation that involves a single vehicle
idling on the same block. Therefore, DEP will only accept one complaint per day for each
violation of Administrative Code§ 24-163(a) involving the same vehicle idling on the same
block on the same day. DEP' s policy in this regard is rational as accepting multiple complaints
for idling violations that would be dismissed as "duplicate" would waste administrative
resources.
Additionally, it was rational for DEP not to allow issuance of said complaints for vehicles
which did not have commercial plates. The Court gives deference to DEP' s interpretation of the
definition of "truck", "on duty" emergency vehicle, and Administrative Code§§ 24-163(a) and
24-178(a)(3)(ii), because the agency's interpretations are reasonable and rational and based on
special competence DEP has developed in its administration of these sections of the
Administrative Code.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Welde v New York City Dept. of Envtl. Protection 2024 NY Slip Op 30024(U) January 5, 2024 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 154338/2023 Judge: Sabrina Kraus Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. INDEX NO. 154338/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 36 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. SABRINA KRAUS PART 57TR Justice ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------X INDEX NO. 154338/2023 ERNEST LOGAN WELDE, 10/24/2023, Plaintiff, MOTION DATE 10/31/2023
- V - MOTION SEQ. NO. _ _0_0_1_0_0_2__
NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION Defendant. ------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------X
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 were read on this motion to/for ARTICLE 78 (BODY OR OFFICER)
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 were read on this motion to/for JUDGMENT - DEFAULT
BACKGROUND
Section 24-163(a) of the Administrative Code of the City of New York ("Administrative
Code") prohibits the idling of vehicles, with limited exceptions, for more than three minutes.
Under Administrative Code§ 24-182(a), any natural person ("Citizen Reporter") may serve a
complaint on DEP alleging that a person has violated Administrative Code § 24-163 by allowing
a bus or truck to idle for more than three minutes. Such a complaint must be served upon DEP
"together with evidence of such violation." Administrative Code § 24-182( a).
Petitioner has submitted approximately 9,799 citizen idling complains to DEP - 3,642 of
those complaints were submitted in 2023 alone. In the instant proceeding, Petitioner is
challenging the denial of nearly 400 idling complaints submitted to DEP since the end of 2022.
154338/2023 WELDE, ERNEST LOGAN vs. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF Page 1 of 7 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Motion No. 001 002
1 of 7 [* 1] INDEX NO. 154338/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 36 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2024
Respondent cross-moves for dismissal pursuant to CPLR §§ 321 l(a)(5), (a)(2), (a)(7), on
the grounds that Petitioner's claims are time-barred, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction,
and the petition fails to state a cause of action.
For the reasons set forth below, the petition is denied, Petitioner's motion for a default
judgment is denied and the cross-motion to dismiss is granted.
DISCUSSION
254 of Petitioner's Challenged Complaints are Time-Barred
A proceeding brought pursuant to Article 78 of the CPLR "must be commenced within
four months after the determination to be reviewed becomes final and binding upon the petitioner
or the person whom he represents in law or in fact .... " CPLR § 217(1).
Any challenges to the final determinations issued by DEP prior to January 12, 2023, are
time-barred by the four-month statute of limitations for Article 78 proceedings. Of the nearly 400
complaints challenged in the instant proceeding, 254 of them had final determinations issued
before January 12, 2023, and are time-barred.
The time barred complaints and the final determinations for same are listed in NYSCEF
Doc #s 16, 17, 18, and 189. The petition is dismissed as to said claims.
Complaints Reconsidered by DEP
DEP has reconsidered the complaint numbers 2023-56577; 2023- 33133; 2023-50412;
and 2023-48840 and has either issued the violation or will allow Petitioner to pursue the
violation. The primary relief sought against Respondent for these complaints was for DEP to
reverse its determination to deny those complaints. Here, DEP has reconsidered these four
complaints and reversed its decision.
154338/2023 WELDE, ERNEST LOGAN vs. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF Page 2 of 7 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Motion No. 001 002
2 of 7 [* 2] INDEX NO. 154338/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 36 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2024
As Petitioner was granted this portion of the relief requested for, Petitioner's claim is not
justiciable and is moot, and the Petition is dismissed as to said claims.
Remaining Challenged Denials
Of the remaining 100 complaints Petitioner seeks to challenge, DEP' s denials were based
on one of two grounds; 1) the vehicle did not have commercial plates and, thus, did not qualify
as a commercial vehicle eligible for a violation under RCNY, or 2) the complaint was duplicative
of another complaint submitted the same day for the same vehicle at the same location.
To the extent that the Petition appears to seek relief in the form of mandamus to compel
DEP to pursue, or allow Petitioner to pursue, specific complaints, Petitioner is not entitled to
such relief. Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy used to compel performance by an
administrative body or officer of a duty positively required by law. See Hamptons Hosp. & Med.
Ctr., Inc. v. Moore, 52 N.Y.2d 88 (1981); Gimprich v. Bd. ofEduc., 306 N.Y. 401 (1954).
However, the mandamus remedy is available only where there is a clear and absolute right to the
relief sought, and the body or officer whose duty it is to enforce such right has refused to
perform such duty. See Brusco v. Braun, 84 N.Y.2d 674, 678 (1994); County of Fulton v. State of
New York, 76 N.Y.2d 675, 678 (1990); Lisa v. Bd. ofEduc., 83 A.D.2d 949 (2d Dept. 1981).
Petitioner is not entitled to an order that DEP allow him to self-prosecute the complaints.
DEP notified Petitioner that the complaints were denied because another citizen already
submitted a complaint, and that only one violation would be issued per occurrence per day and
location for all vehicles.
Under Administrative Code§ 24-178(a)(3)(ii), a penalty can be imposed once per day per
violation of Administrative Code§ 24-163(a). DEP has interpreted, and OATH has held, that,
when read in conjunction, Administrative Code§§ 24-163(a) and 24-178(a)(3)(ii) only allow
154338/2023 WELDE, ERNEST LOGAN vs. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF Page 3 of 7 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Motion No. 001 002
3 of 7 [* 3] INDEX NO. 154338/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 36 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2024
OATH to impose one penalty per day for each idling violation that involves a single vehicle
idling on the same block. Therefore, DEP will only accept one complaint per day for each
violation of Administrative Code§ 24-163(a) involving the same vehicle idling on the same
block on the same day. DEP' s policy in this regard is rational as accepting multiple complaints
for idling violations that would be dismissed as "duplicate" would waste administrative
resources.
Additionally, it was rational for DEP not to allow issuance of said complaints for vehicles
which did not have commercial plates. The Court gives deference to DEP' s interpretation of the
definition of "truck", "on duty" emergency vehicle, and Administrative Code§§ 24-163(a) and
24-178(a)(3)(ii), because the agency's interpretations are reasonable and rational and based on
special competence DEP has developed in its administration of these sections of the
Administrative Code.
The DEP Commissioner has the authority to make policy determinations in the
administration of the agency's duties. Title 24 of the Administrative Code§ 24-105(a) states in
relevant part, "The commissioner may adopt such rules, regulations and procedures as may be
necessary to effectuate the purposes of this chapter, including rules, regulations and procedures
[] ... "
Enforcement of the idling restrictions is done in conjunction with other City agencies.
Administrative Code§ 24-163(b) and (e) task the New York City Department of Transportation
("DOT"), the New York City Police Department, the New York City Department of Sanitation,
and the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation with enforcement responsibilities
regarding the idling restrictions.
154338/2023 WELDE, ERNEST LOGAN vs. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF Page 4 of 7 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Motion No. 001 002
4 of 7 [* 4] INDEX NO. 154338/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 36 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2024
Pursuant to the Vehicle and Traffic Law, City agencies can further define and regulate
vehicles within the City. DOT promulgated rules in Title 24 of the Rules of the City of New
York § 4-0, 1 defining particular words and phrases related to idling and commercial activities.
The New York City Department of Transportation's regulations are codified in the Rules
of the City of New York. Title 34 RCNY § 4-0l(a) states,"[] Whenever any words and phrases
used in these rules are not defined herein but are defined in Article 1 of the New York State
Vehicle and Traffic Law, any such definition shall be deemed to apply to such words and phrases
used herein."
DEP's use ofDOT's definition of "truck" as a vehicle with commercial plates as a basis
for issuing idling violations pursuant to Administrative Code§ 163(a) was rational. DEP has a
rational basis to use the definitions of sister-agency DOT for "truck" in lieu of the state law
because it is the less ambiguous definition of "truck" and is permissible by law. See, VIL§
1642. Furthermore, consistency of language for the purposes of enforcement between City
agencies is an essential element in working to ensure predictable application of the City's rules
and regulations for administrative determinations.
DEP' s rejection of a complaint regarding an emergency medical services ("EMS")
vehicle was also reasonable and rational. EMS ambulances therefore are essentially the "offices"
of the EMTs and paramedics who must listen to their radios in their trucks for dispatch
information. Moreover, the trucks contain a plethora of medications that must be kept at constant
temperatures and the ambulances are specifically equipped to store them accordingly. In other
words, EMS vehicles that are idling while on duty, awaiting a call, are, in fact, maintaining their
readiness to respond to a call. Thus, DEP's decision to use the DOT definition of "truck", and
154338/2023 WELDE, ERNEST LOGAN vs. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF Page 5 of 7 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Motion No. 001 002
5 of 7 [* 5] INDEX NO. 154338/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 36 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2024
therefore only issuing violations for vehicles with commercial plates, as well as reject a
complaint for an EMS vehicle, was a rational application of statutory interpretation.
In deciding whether an agency's determination was arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of
discretion, courts do not review the facts de novo to arrive at an independent determination.
Marsh v. Hanley, 50 A.D.2d 687, 687 (3d Dept. 1975); see also Heintz, 80 N.Y.2d at 1001. The
reviewing court "may not substitute its own judgment of the evidence for that of the
administrative agency but should review the whole record to determine whether there exists a
rational basis to support the findings upon which the agency's determination is predicated."
Purdy v. Kriesberg, 47 N.Y.2d 354, 358 (1979). A rational or reasonable basis for an
administrative agency determination exists if there is evidence in the record to support its
conclusion. See Sewell v. New York, 182 A.D.2d 469, 473 (1st Dept. 1992). As such, "[i]f the
determination is rational, it must be upheld, even though the court, if viewing the case in the first
instance, might have reached a different conclusion." Sullivan County Harness Racing, 30
N.Y.2d at 278. Unless the reviewing court finds that the agency acted in excess of its
jurisdiction, in violation of a lawful procedure, arbitrarily, or in abuse of its discretion, the court
has no alternative but to confirm the agency's decision. See Pell, 34 N.Y.2d at 231.
Finally, Petitioner's motion for a default judgment is denied for the reasons stated above
and because Respondent submitted responsive papers to Petitioner's Verified Amended Petition
on October 20, 2023 when it filed its cross-motion to dismiss the Verified Amended Petition.
Petitioner has no basis for his motion for a default judgment.
WHEREFORE it is hereby:
ADJUDGED that the motion to dismiss the petition is granted and the petition is dismissed;
and it is further
154338/2023 WELDE, ERNEST LOGAN vs. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF Page 6 of 7 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Motion No. 001 002
6 of 7 [* 6] INDEX NO. 154338/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 36 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2024
ORDERED that the motion for a default judgment is denied; and it is further
ORDERED that any relief not expressly addressed has nonetheless been considered and
is hereby denied; and it is further
ORDERED that, within 20 days from entry of this order, Respondent shall serve a copy of
this order with notice of entry on the Clerk of the General Clerk's Office (60 Centre Street, Room
119); and it is further
ORDERED that such service upon the Clerk shall be made in accordance with the
procedures set forth in the Protocol on Courthouse and County Clerk Procedures for
Electronically Filed Cases (accessible at the "E-Filing" page on the court's website at the address
www.nycourts.gov/supctmanh);]; and it is further
This constitutes the decision and order of this court.
1/5/2024 DATE SABRINA KRAUS, J.S.C. CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED NON-FINAL DISPOSITION
GRANTED □ DENIED GRANTED IN PART □ OTHER APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER
CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT □ REFERENCE
154338/2023 WELDE, ERNEST LOGAN vs. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF Page 7 of 7 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Motion No. 001 002
7 of 7 [* 7]