LL5084041
Page 16
Dept. of Consumer Affairs et al. v. All Boro Collision Specialist, Inc. and Robert Coppolino
CITY OF NEW YORK
DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS
THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS,ELVIR AZANLI, DAVID ROLDAN, MEL ROSENKRANZ, MARY MCVICKER, BARBARA BRETT, VINCENT SPERO. LARAINE VETERE, ROLAND ONOUHA, PHILIP HECKLER, MERYL EPSTEIN, JACQULINE HART, AND PHILIP DEMATTIA,
Complainants,
-against-
all boro collision specialist, inc. and ROBERT COPPOLINO,
Respondents. / DECISION AND ORDER
Violation No.: LL5084041
License No.: 885840
Respondents’ Addresses:
All Boro Collision Specialist, Inc.
216-02 Hempstead Avenue
Queens Village, NY 11429
Robert Coppolino
135 West Tiana Road
Hampton Bay, NY 11946
Date: December 21, 2006
An inquest on the above-captioned matter was held on October 16, 2006.
Appearances: For the complainants: Karen Miller, Esq. Although duly notified of the time and place of the hearing, the respondents failed to appear.
The respondents are charged, as set forth in the “Consolidated Notice of Hearing” dated August 10, 2005, with violating the following:
1) Failure to comply with a subpoena duces tecum when the sole corporate office failed to appear;
2) New York City Administrative Code Section 19-169.1(a), by repeatedly and persistently removing vehicles parked on private property without a current valid contract between the owner of the private property and the tow operator;
3) New York City Administrative Code Section 19-169.1(c), by repeatedly and persistently removing vehicles from private property without express written authorization by the owner of the private property or its agent as designated in the contract between the owner of the private property and the tow operator (10 counts, i.e., for the following consumer complainants: Rosenkranz, McVicker, Brett, Spero, Vetere, Onuoha, Heckler, Epstein, Hart and Demattia);
4) New York City Administrative Code Section 19-169.1(a), by repeatedly and persistently charging for removal of a vehicle from private property that was not parked in a manner inconsistent with posted instructions (6 counts, i.e., for the following consumer complainants: Rosenkranz, McVicker, Vetere, Onuoha, Heckler and Demattia);
5) New York City Administrative Code Section 20-527, by repeatedly and persistently refusing to accept major credit cards from consumers (2 counts i.e., for the following consumer complainants: Roldan and Brett);
6) New York City Administrative Code Sections 19-169.1(a), 19169.1(g) and/or 20-509(d)(1), by repeatedly and persistently overcharging consumers for towing services, specifically, by demanding from consumers more than one hundred dollars for removal and the first three days of storage and demanding more than $50 for a “drop fee” in cases where the vehicle had been connected to apparatus for removal but had not been removed (7 counts i.e., for the following consumer complainants: Roldan, Rosenkranz, Brett, Spero, Vetere, Onuoha and Hart);
7a) New York City Administrative Code Section 19-169.1(g) and (h), by failing to provide the consumers with detailed, signed receipts (2 counts i.e., for the following consumer complainants: Roldan and Brett).;
7b) 6 RCNY Sections 5-32(c)(2), by failing to include separate statements of tax on consumers’ receipts (1 count i.e., for the following consumer complainant: Azanli)
8) New York City Administrative Code Section 19-169.1(h), by failing to show the legal name of the person towing consumers’ vehicles on the receipt given to the consumers (8 counts i.e., for the following consumer complainants: Azanli, McVicker, Spero, Vetere, Onuoha, Heckler, Epstein and Hart);
9) Title 6 of the Rules of the City of New York (“6 RCNY”) Section 1-13, by failing to respond in writing to the Department within twenty days of mailing by the Department of a consumer complaint (“repeated” and “persistent” violations) (9 counts, i.e., for the following consumer complainants: Azanli, Roldan, McVicker, Brett, Spero, Vetere, Heckler, Epstein, and Demattia);
10) New York City Administrative Code Section 19-169.1(f), by failing to notify the police, within thirty minutes of the towed vehicle’s arrival at the storage facility, of the following information: the location of the storage site, the time the vehicle was removed, location from which the vehicle was removed, the name of the person who authorized the removal, and that the removal was according to a contract with the owner of the private property; and failed to obtain the name of the police precinct to whom such information was reported;
11) New York City Administrative Code Section 19-169.1(e), by “staging”, in that it removed vehicles from private property and took them to premises that it did not maintain and/or places that were not secure (“repeated” and “persistent” violations) (2 counts, i.e., for the following consumer complainants: McVicker and Brett);
12) New York City Administrative Code Section 20-101, by repeatedly and persistently failing to maintain standards of honesty, integrity and fair dealing (12 counts, i.e. for the following consumer complainants: Azanli, Roldan, Rosenkranz, McVicker, Brett, Spero, Vetere, Onuoha, Heckler, Epstein, Hart and Demattia); and
13) New York City Administrative Code Section 19-169.1(b) by failing to conspicuously post and maintain upon private property signs stating the name, address, and telephone number of the tow operator, the hours of operation for vehicle redemption, towing and storage fees of the tow operator, and the hours vehicles are prohibited from parking and subject to tow (2 counts, i.e., for the following consumer complainants: McVicker and Demattia).
Based on the evidence in this case, I RECOMMEND the following:
Findings of Fact
The respondent, All Boro Collision Specialist, Inc. (“All Boro”), is licensed by the Department under license no. 885840 as a tow truck company at 216-02 Hempstead Avenue, Queens Village, New York.
Elvir Azanli, CD5-85890, Notice of Hearing (“NOH”), p.3, ¶1: On May 22, 2004, complainant Azanli was involved in a car accident. The police called All Boro. All Boro charged Azanli $80 for the accident tow. The receipt that All Boro issued to Azanli did not include a separate statement of tax or an authorizing signature. All Boro damaged Azanli’s transmission. Azanli attempted to contact All Boro on numerous occasions but All Boro did not respond.
David Roldan, CD5-85353, NOH, p.3, ¶2: On or about April 14, 2004, complainant Roldan had parked his vehicle in a towing zone. The vehicle was towed and brought back to Roldan a few hours later. All Boro charged him $162.00 for the tow. All Boro did not issue Roldan a receipt even tough he requested one. On May 19, 2004, the Department mailed a copy of the complaint to All Boro.
Mel Rosenkranz, CD5-85817, NOH, p.4, ¶3: On March 31, 2004, complainant Rosenkranz and his wife parked in the Dolphin Fitness Center. Rosenkranz purchased an item and performed some business matters at Dolphin, then proceeded to cross the street to the DMV to inform his wife where he was. When Rosenkranz and his wife returned to the parking lot, they found that their car had been towed by All Boro. Rosenkranz was charged $162.50.
Mary McVicker, CD5-84828, NOH, p.4, ¶4: On February 25, 2004, complainant McVicker parked her car in a shopping center’s parking lot located next to the Queens Department of Motor Vehicles (“DMV”) and proceeded to the DMV for approximately two hours. There were no signs posted warning of towing for illegal parking. When McVicker returned to the lot, she found that her car was missing. An agent from All Boro informed her that her car had been towed to 11th Avenue. When McVicker asked how she could retrieve her car, All Boro’s agent told her that he would drive her to the car. When McVicker asked if she could pay with credit card, All Boro told her she could only use a credit card if she lived in Queens Village, where All Boro’s office is located, and that the cost would be $160.00. McVicker opted to pay in cash, and when she returned from the ATM with the money, All Boro had already brought her car back to the parking lot and charged her $167.00 for the tow and return. On April 13, 2004, the Department mailed a copy of the complaint to All Boro.
Barbara Brett, CD5-85145, NOH, p.4, ¶5: On February 23, 2004, complainant Brett parked her car in a private lot. A company called “Tows R Us” towed Brett’s car to the back of the parking lot, but the car never left the lot. The tow company refused to accept a credit card payment, and also did not issue a receipt to Brett. Brett was charged $162.00 in order to retrieve her car. On June 9, 2004, the Department mailed a copy of the complaint to All Boro.
Vincent Spero, CD5-84342, NOH, p.4, ¶6: On December 8, 2003, complainant Spero accidentally parked in the wrong parking lot in a business complex located at 30-50 Whitestone Expressway. When Spero returned to the lot after about five minutes, All Boro had already hooked up his car to their truck. All Boro told Spero that he had to pay $162.00 to have the car released. Spero paid $162.00 in order to disconnect his car from the truck. On March 8, 2004, the Department mailed a copy of the complaint to All Boro.
Laraine Vetere, CD5-81227, NOH, p.4, ¶7: On May 8, 2003, complainant Vetere parked her car in a Kentucky Fried Chicken’s parking lot located at 158-50 Cross Bay Blvd. Vetere stopped by the pharmacy next to the Kentucky Fried Chicken to drop off a prescription. She was in the store for no longer than two minutes. When Vetere returned to purchase her dinner from Kentucky Fried Chicken, she found that All Boro had hooked up her car to their truck. All Boro charged Vetere $108.00 before releasing her car.
Roland Onuoha, CD5-80888, NOH, p.4, ¶8: On March 16, 2003, complainant Onuoha parked in a Rite Aid parking lot located at 245-06 Francis Lewis Blvd. in Queens to purchase some items from the store. When he approached the store, however, Onuoha realized that it was closed. Onuoha then crossed the street to make a purchase from a deli. Within five minutes, Onuoha returned, but All Boro had already attached his car to their truck. Onuoha asked the All Boro driver to drop his car, but All Boro refused. Instead, All Boro told Onuoha that he would charge him $90.00 without a receipt, but if Onuoha wanted a receipt, he would have to pay $100.00 plus tax. Onuoha opted to pay $108.00 so that he would have a receipt documenting the transaction.
Philip Heckler, CD5-77398, NOH, p.4, ¶9: On June 21, 2002, complainant Heckler parked in a Bayside Marina parking lot that required parking permits. Heckler had displayed his permit in his windshield. All Boro proceeded to tow Heckler’s car and charged him $108.00 before returning the car. On July 30, 2002, the Department mailed a copy of the complaint to All Boro.
Meryl Epstein, CD5-77397, NOH, p.4, ¶10: On June 20, 2002, complainant Epstein parked in an IHOP parking lot and went to the hairdresser’s shop next door. The hairdresser told her she could park there. When Epstein walked out of the hairdresser’s, she found her car attached to All Boro’s truck, ready to be towed. All Boro told Epstein that she had to pay $108.00 in order to have her car dropped, and that she could only pay with cash. Epstein proceeded to call the police, and upon their arrival, they told her that the All Boro driver had to accept a credit card. Epstein called an agent from All Boro’s office, and that agent changed the towing amount from $108.00 to $50.00 plus tax. Epstein paid $54.00 before her car was released. On July 30, 2002, the Department mailed a copy of the complaint to All Boro.
Jacqueline Hart, CD5-76859, NOH, p.4, ¶11: On June 9, 2002, complainant Hart parking in a Bayside Marina parking lot that required parking permits. Aware that she did not have a permit, Hart parked in the lot and proceeded to find out where she could purchase a permit. When she returned to the lot approximately 25 minutes later, Hart found All Boro in the process of towing her car. All Boro told Hart that she had to pay $108.00 to get her car off the truck’s lift. Hart told All Boro that she did not have enough money. All Boro then told her that she would have to walk home and get the money within 20 minutes, and then took Hart’s driver license. Hart’s boyfriend had to drive home and get the rest of the money. Hart paid $108.00 to All Boro.
Philip Demattia, CD5-16242, NOH, p.4, ¶12: On April 1, 2002, complainant Demattia parked in what he thought was a legal parking spot because there were no signs indicating that the space was prohibited. Upon returning to the parking lot, Demattia found that All Boro had towed his car away. Demattia had to pay $108.25 in order to retrieve his vehicle. On May 13, 2002, the Department mailed a copy of the complaint to All Boro.
Opinion
All charges against Respondent Robert Coppolino:
Robert Coppolino is not a licensee of the Department. The Department has failed to establish why he should be held personally liable for All Boro’s actions. Therefore, the Department has not established a prima facie violation of any the cited provisions as against him and all counts, as against him, shall be dismissed.
Charges against Respondent All Boro:
Charge 1:
The Notice of Hearing charges the respondent with failing to comply with a subpoena duces tecum, but does not cite a section of law. Therefore, this charge shall be dismissed.