Williams v. New York City Taxi & Limousine Commission

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Williams v. New York City Taxi & Limousine Commission

225 A.D.2d 502, 640 N.Y.2d 39, 640 N.Y.S.2d 39, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3266

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

DecidedMarch 28, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 225 A.D.2d 502 (Williams v. New York City Taxi & Limousine Commission) 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

Williams v. New York City Taxi & Limousine Commission, 225 A.D.2d 502, 640 N.Y.2d 39, 640 N.Y.S.2d 39, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3266 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

[503]*503Respondent’s determination is supported by substantial evidence, namely, the testimony of an inspector that he observed petitioner’s vehicle, which had a cab-like partition and three persons inside in addition to the driver, stop at a bus station, where the driver solicited a fourth passenger, and then proceed towards a subway station, and that when he stopped the vehicle the passengers in the back seat said that the driver, who they did not know personally, usually takes them to the station for a dollar. The driver’s testimony that the passengers were all friends of his who he was giving a ride to work raised an issue of credibility that was for the Administrative Law Judge to decide." We have considered petitioner’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Ross, Williams and Tom, JJ.

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

[503]*503Respondent’s determination is supported by substantial evidence, namely, the testimony of an inspector that he observed petitioner’s vehicle, which had a cab-like partition and three persons inside in addition to the driver, stop at a bus station, where the driver solicited a fourth passenger, and then proceed towards a subway station, and that when he stopped the vehicle the passengers in the back seat said that the driver, who they did not know personally, usually takes them to the station for a dollar. The driver’s testimony that the passengers were all friends of his who he was giving a ride to work raised an issue of credibility that was for the Administrative Law Judge to decide." We have considered petitioner’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Ross, Williams and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 A.D.2d 502, 640 N.Y.2d 39, 640 N.Y.S.2d 39, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3266, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-new-york-city-taxi-limousine-commission-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack