1

Taxi & Limousine Comm’n v. Ladenheim

OATH Index No. 1637/07 (May 14, 2007)

In license revocation proceeding, respondent, who failed to appear, was found to haveharassed a Commission representative by sending a profanity-laden letter to the representative. Revocation of respondent’s Commissionlicense and a $1,000 fine recommended.

______

NEW YORK CITY OFFICE OF

ADMINISTRATIVE TRIALS AND HEARINGS

In the Matter of

TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION

Petitioner

-against-

DAVID LADENHEIM

Respondent

______

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

JULIO RODRIGUEZ,Administrative Law Judge

This license revocation proceeding was commenced by the Taxi and Limousine Commission against respondent, David Ladenheim, pursuant to the Administrative Code and the Taxicab Drivers Rules, title 35, chapter 2 of the Rules of the City of New York (RCNY). Petitioner alleges that respondent violated rule 2-60(a) of the Taxicab Drivers Rules on February 26, 2007 when he mailed a profanity-laden letter to a Commission employee (Pet. Ex. 1).

On April 13, 2007, respondent failed to appear for the hearing. Petitioner’s proof of service of the petition and notice of hearing satisfied this tribunal’s service requirements pursuant to OATH's Rules of Practice section 1-23(b)and established the jurisdictional prerequisite for finding respondent in default. 48 RCNY § 1-23(b) (Lexis 2007). Respondent was declared in default and the proceeding went forward as an inquest.

Petitioner presented the testimony of the Azam Kifaieh, an investigator with the Commission, and Phillip Elliott, Director of Operational Support in the Commission’s Adjudication Division.

For the following reasons, I find that the charge is sustained. I recommend thatrespondent’s hacklicense be revoked and $1,000 fine be imposed.

ANALYSIS

On February 26, 2007, respondent, a licensed medallion operator, mailed a certified letter to Phillip Elliott, Director of Operational Support in the Commission’s Adjudication Division,which was received on February 28, 2006 (Pet. Ex. 2a, b, & c). The envelope was addressed to “Philip [sic] C. Elliot [sic], Director of ASSHOLES” (Pet. Ex. 2b). The letter, a response to a Notice of Inquest letter[1] sent to respondent by the Commission’s Adjudication Divisionon February 20, 2007 (Pet. Ex. 4), was full of expletives (Pet. Ex. 2a). Respondent, in bolded underlined type, referred to Elliott as an “ASSHOLE” and a “FUCKING ASSHOLE” numerous times. Respondent signed the letter and included his full name, address and the certified mail tracking number. The incoherent and disturbing letter makes reference to “World War 2, 4 Star General George S. Patton,” and tells Elliott, using a profanity, to “take your head out of [another Commission employee’s] ASSHOLE” (Pet. Ex. 2a)(emphasis in original). Respondent concluded the letter with the following handwritten comment: YOU REALLY MUST BE A [sic] ASSHOLE. TAKE THIS LETTER AS MY MOTION TO VACATE. OK ASSHOLE.

Elliott testified that he was stunned after reading the letter and was worried that respondent was emotionally disturbed. Although Elliott was not “scared” by respondent’s irrational response, he was offended and disturbed by the letter and concerned for his and his staff’s safety (Tr. 20-21).

Azam Kifaieh, an investigator with the Commission, testified that he spoke with respondent via telephone on March 12, 2007, and that respondent admitted writing, signing and mailing the letter (Tr. 10).

Rule 2-60(a) reads in relevant part as follows:

A driver shall not threaten, harass or abuse any passenger or anygovernmental or Commission representative, public servant orotherperson while performing his duties and responsibilities as a driver.

35 RCNY §2-60(a) (Lexis 2007). The undisputed evidence establishes that respondent wroteand senta profanity riddled letter to a Commission representative to harass the representative. Respondent sent the letter in response to an official communication from the Commission regarding his license. I find that respondent’s conduct violated rule 2-60(a)of the Taxicab Drivers Rules and that petitioner sustained the charge.

Respondent’s inexplicable conduct did not cease upon mailing the letter. On March 6, 2007, Investigator Kifaieh sent respondent a letter directing him to appear for an interview on March 14, 2007. On March 12, 2006, respondent called Kifaieh to inquire why he was being called in for an interview. Kifaieh informed respondent that it was in reference to the letter received by Elliott. Kifaieh complied with respondent’s request that he read the first paragraph of the letter, at which time respondent admitted writing the letter. Respondent was yelling and screaming during the telephone conversation and stated “I know you’re following this asshole, order of this asshole, [a Commission employee].” During a second telephone call to Kifaieh on March 12, 2007, respondent repeatedly asked for Elliott’s home address and personal telephone number (Tr. 10-13).

On April 12, 2007, Kifaieh called respondent to inquire whether respondent would appear at the hearing before this tribunal (Tr. 13). Respondent said that he would not appear and proceeded to make vulgar and threatening comments regarding two Commission employees. Respondent referred to the employees as “fucking cock suckers” and, using profane and vulgar language, stated that he would ejaculate on the employees’ wives’ faces (Tr.14). Respondent also stated that one of the employee’s was “lucky I don’t kill him.”

The comments and conduct just described, although uncharged, are highly probative of respondent’s mental state and total disregard of the Commission rules and processes.

RECOMMENDATION

Petitioner has requested that I recommend both the revocation of respondent’s Commissionlicense and the imposition of a $1,000 fine. The respondent has been found guilty of engaging in conduct which is bizarre and disturbing. While respondent’s threatening and vulgar language on April 12, 2007, is an aggravating factor to consider in formulating a recommendation, the conduct that respondent has been found guilty of is sufficient alone to warrant revocation. Accordingly, I recommend that respondent’s hack license be revoked and that he be assessed a $1,000 fine.

Julio Rodriguez

Administrative Law Judge

May14, 2007

SUBMITTED TO:

MATHEW W. DAUS

Commissioner

APPEARANCES:

MARC T. HARDEKOPF, ESQ.

Attorney for Petitioner

No Appearance by or for Respondent.

[1] The notice informed respondent that he failed to appear at a hearing on February 15, 2007, a $1,100 fine had been assessed against him, and that his license would be suspended if did not pay the fine or file a motion to vacate the default judgment by March 6, 2007 (Pet. Ex. 4).